20191232_Reports_20090227

INTERSTATE ACCESS ADDITION
TO I-485
AT WEDDINGTON ROAD (SR 3468)
Access to be constructed as a part of
State Project 8.U670124
TIP Project R-0211EC
WBS Element 34331.1.7
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
0?9
at
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Date f John F. Sullivan III, Division A
ederal Highway Administration
INTERSTATE ACCESS ADDITION
TO I-485
AT WEDDINGTON ROAD (SR 3468)
Access to be constructed as a part of
State Project 8.U670124
TIP Project R-0211 EC
WBS Element 34331.1.7
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
February 2009
3
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by' MI
Uudrea Major
Project Development Engineer
pJ es F. Bridges, P. E.
rojcct Development Unit Head
CAR
0l/.
FESS/py9<? 'c
BEAT = =
022109
?NGIN 5 l
'Meruu?"`'P`,,
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
INTERSTATE ACCESS REVISION
TO 1-485
AT WEDDINGTON ROAD (SR 3468)
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
Access to be constructed as a part of
Federal Aid Project NHF-117-1(54)
State Project 8.U670124
TIP Project R-0211EC
WBS Element 34331.1.7
Roadway Design Unit / Division 10
NCDOT will provide 14ft (4.2m) outside lanes and 12ft (3.6m) inside lanes to
accommodate bicycle traffic along the Weddington Road (SR 3468) portion of the
project.
Roadway Design Unit / Division 10
Sidewalks will be incorporated into the final design plan for a portion of the project
within the City of Charlotte city limits and the Town of Matthews town limits. NCDOT
will contribute a percentage of the construction cost for the sidewalk installation
corresponding to the preset percentages allotted for each municipality involved. Final
terms and costs of constructing the sidewalks will be disclosed in a municipal agreement
between NCDOT and the City of Charlotte and NCDOT and the Town of Matthews
seperately.
Structure Design Unit / Division 10
Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be
placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter
greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a
diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
TIP No. R-021 I EC
Finding Of no Significant Impact - February 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION ....................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................ .......... 2
A. General Description ................................... ........... 2
B. Alternatives Studied ................................... ........... 2
C. Proposed Cross Sections ............................. ............ 4
D. Intersections and Type of Control ................... ......... 4
E. Structures ............................................... .......... 4
F. Bicycle Provisions ..................................... ......... 4
G. Design Speed .......................................... ....... 5
H. Sidewalks ............................................. .......... 5
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ........................................ 5
A. Project Benefits ................................................. 5
B. Air Quality ...................................................... 6
C. Traffic Noise .................................................... 8
D. Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Effects ... 8
E. Relocation Program .............................................. 8
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ................. 9
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ........................... 9
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ............... 10
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ....10
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public
Hearing ............................................................. 22
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ... 26
A. Cost Estimates ...........................:.........................26
B. Bridge/Culvert Reccomendation ................................ 26
C. Sidewalks ...........................................................26
D. Federally-Protected Species .................................... 27
E. Surface Waters Affected Within the Project Study Area..... 27
APPENDIX
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Recommended Project Alternative
Figure 3 Study Area and Impact Study Area
Figure 4 Zoning Within the Study Area
Appendix B Correspondence Letters
Appendix C Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
Appendix D Fresh Water Mussel Survey
INTERSTATE ACCESS REVISION
TO I-485
AT WEDDINGTON ROAD (SR 3468)
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
Access to be constructed as a part of
Federal Aid Project NHF-117-1(54)
State Project 8.U670124
TIP Project R-0111 EC
NABS Element 34331.1.7
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
. in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
Of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation and the FHWA have
determined this project will not have any significant impact on the human environment.
This FONSI is based on the May 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement
is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content
of the EA. The Following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning
this proposal and assessment:
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager
Project Developmental and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct an interchange at
I-485 and Weddington Road (SR 3468) in Mecklenburg County (see Appendix A, Figure 1).
The purpose of this project is to Improve access to I-485 from Weddington Road and
surrounding communities in Weddington, Matthews, and Charlotte city limits. The
proposed interchange, located between John Street and NC 16 interchanges, provides a
closer and improved route from the project area to I-485.
The project consists of constructing a half-clover interchange with ramps and
loops in the northeast and southeast quadrants (see Figure 2, Appendix A). This
interchange will provide 16-foot wide ramps and 18-foot wide loops. Weddington Road
will be widened within the project area to a five-lane, 68-foot, face to face curb and gutter
roadway. A 5.5-foot wide sidewalk will be included on each side of the bridge and
roadway. Left turn lanes will be provided on Weddington Road at the ramp and loop
intersections.
The approved 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes
total funding of $18,250,000 for the project with $6,100,000 for right of way and
$11,500,000 for construction. Currently, the project is estimated to cost $18,425,000,
which includes $6,275,000 for right of way acquisition and $11,500,000 for construction
and 650,000 in prior planning costs. The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition
to begin in federal fiscal year 2009 (FFY 09) and construction to begin in 2011 (FFY 11).
B. Alternatives Studied
Three interchange alternatives were considered during the development of the
project. These alternatives are described below.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is a half-clover interchange that provides loop/ramp
combinations in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The
intersection of the loop/ramp combination in the northeast quadrant
will be aligned with Plantation Road. The loop/ramp combination
in the southeast quadrant will provide an offset intersection at
Plantation Center Drive. The typical section along Weddington
Road will consist of five-lanes with curb and gutter and widening
to the east side of the existing two-lane road. The existing two-
lane bridge over I-485 will be widened to the east providing a five-
lane structure with sidewalk on each side.
2.
3.
4.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is a half-clover interchange that provides loop/ramp
combinations in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The
intersections of the loop/ramp combinations in the northeast and
southeast quadrants will be aligned with Plantation Road and
Plantation Center Drive respectively. The typical section along
Weddington Road will consist of five-lanes with curb and gutter
and widening to the east side of the existing two-lane road. The
existing two-lane bridge over I-485 will be widened to the east
providing a five-lane structure with sidewalk on each side.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is a half-clover interchange that provides loop/ramp
combinations in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The
intersection of the loop/ramp combination in the northeast quadrant
will be aligned with Plantation Road with the implementation of a
roundabout. The typical section along Weddington Road will
consist of five-lanes with curb and gutter and widening to the east
side of the existing two-lane road. The existing two-lane bridge
over I-485 will be widened to the east providing a five-lane
structure with sidewalk on each side.
"No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" alternative was considered, but dismissed based on
the continued commitment of the Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City of Charlotte and the
Town of Weddington.
Public Transportation Alternative
The public transportation alternative is not a viable solution to the
transportation concern, nor does it meet the purpose and need
established for this project.
6. Selected Alternative
The selected alternative (alternative 2 is described in the paragraph
above. Alternative 2 minimizes impact to the property owned by
the Siskey YMCA. Land is conserved under this alternative by
proposal of a tighter loop/ramp combination in the southeast
quadrant. Aligning the loop/ramp intersection with Plantation
Center Drive also allows for better traffic control for the proposed
roadway facility and patrons of Plantation Plaza.
C. Proposed Cross Sections
The proposed interchange will provide 16-foot wide ramps and 18-foot wide
loops. Within the project area, Weddington Road will be widened to a 68-foot roadway
to accommodate five lanes for the bridge and four lanes with a concrete median along the
roadway. The facility will provide two 12-foot wide inside travel lanes, two 14-foot
wide outside travel lanes to accommodate cyclists. Turn lanes are proposed along
Weddington Road (SR 3468) at the intersections with the loop/ramp combinations.
D. Intersecting Roadways and Type of Control
The proposed ramps and loops will intersect with Weddington Road (SR 3468)
and provide new traffic signals. The McKee Road (SR 3440) intersection will utilize the
existing signalization with the possibility of phasing revisions to accommodate the north
leg of the proposed interchange.
E. Structures
Bridge number 715 which carries Weddington Road over I-485 will be widened
to 79 ft which will include a 64 ft roadway width and 2 ft gutters and 5.5 ft curb and
sidewalk on both sides. The existing bridge rails will be replaced with 42-inch 3-bar
metal rails.

The project will maintain the required 16-foot minimum vertical clearance for an
existing bridge on an interstate highway. The proposed horizontal clearances under this
bridge will also meet the 10-foot minimum horizontal clearance for width.
The recommended alternative will also extend an existing 6'x 6' concrete box
culvert for the unnamed tributary to Four Mile Creek near the project terminus in order to
accommodate the acceleration/deceleration ramps that merge with I-485.
F. Bicycle Provisions
To accommodate bicycles, the project will have 14 foot outside travel lanes. In
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bicycle Transportation Plan, bike lanes are shown on Trade
Street north of Four Mile Creek, connecting the proposed Greenway to Downtown
Matthews and on Trade Street south of Four Mile Creek to Pleasant Plains Road. McKee
Road, just south of the planned interchange, is also slated for wide outside travel lanes to
accommodate bicycles.
The Mecklenburg-Union 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan proposes bike
lanes from the Siskey Family YMCA just south of the planned interchange on
Weddington Road to Colonel Francis Beatty Park. The City of Charlotte Interim Bicycle
Coordinator indicated that the city would amend their bicycle plan to add bike lanes
continuing south on Weddington Road from Trade Street to the Siskey YMCA.
Preliminary drawings indicate that the project would include the widening of the
bridge over I-485 from 2 to 5 lanes. The fifth lane would be a center turn lane.
Additional pavement will be added to the outside travel lanes of the bridge to
accommodate cyclists.
Access to the Siskey Family YMCA by foot and/or bicycle is a high priority for
the surrounding communities. With the anticipated increases in traffic volumes, this
route will become more difficult for cyclists to use. Alternative bicycling routes are
limited because of the interchanges that exist on either side of the project and the areas of
increasing development near the project area. The project provides a half-clover
interchange design with traffic signals at the ramps and loops, minimizing the number of
conflicts between bicyclists and motorists.
G. Design Speed
A 50 mph design speed is proposed for the ramps, while a 30 mph design speed is
proposed for the loops. A design speed of 45 mph is proposed for Weddington Road (SR
3468).
H. Sidewalks
The City of Charlotte and the Town of Matthews have verbally requested
sidewalks along the project. Upon receipt of written requests from the City of Charlotte
and the Town of Matthews, municipal agreements will be developed with each
municipality to finalize the cost sharing for the implementation of sidewalks in the
respective municipality's jurisdiction. The Town of Matthews has jurisdiction over the
east side, while the City of Charlotte has jurisdiction over the west side of the roadway
within the project area.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
A. Proiect Benefits
The proposed improvements will benefit travel within the region of the state by
increasing accessibility and improving the flow of traffic between I-485 and the Town of
Weddington, southeast Charlotte, and the Town of Matthews.
The projected demand on the Providence Road interchange and the Johns Street
interchange are much higher than can be adequately processed. The addition of an
interchange at Weddington Road will provide relief to both. Union County is the fastest
growing county in North Carolina, and the majority of this growth is along the
Mecklenburg County border. This growth is occurring regardless of whether this
interchange is constructed. Failure to construct this interchange will lead to increased
congestion for the City of Charlotte, the Town of Matthews and the Town of
Weddington. Specifically, congestion will remain an issue at the Providence Road
Interchange and also at intersections along Providence Road via Tilley Moms and
Kuykendall Road, as well as Weddington Road, McKee Road and the John street
interchange.
This project will improve the existing substandard design of Weddington Road
through the interchange area to McKee Road with additional pavement, laneage and
signalization.
B. Air ualit
The project is located in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, which is within the
Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Charlotte nonattainment
area Carbon Monoxide (CO) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The
Mecklenburg-Union County MPO 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity
approval of the LRTP and the USDOT air quality conformity of the MTIP were adopted
April 2002. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have been no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
An air quality intersection analysis was conducted for this project utilizing the
Mobile5B mobile source emissions computer model and "CAL3QHC- A Modeling
Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections." The
Plantation Road and Waddington Road (SR 3468) intersection was selected to analyze air
quality impacts of the proposed project. The "worst-case" predicted 1-hour CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8
ppm, respectively. Comparison to the NAAQS (maximum permitted for I-hour
averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of
these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build
scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A3 for input data and output. Based on the
aforementioned factors, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
significant.
For each alternative in this FONSI, the amount of MSATs emitted would be
proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as
fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build
Alternatives will likely be slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because
the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips
from elsewhere in the transportation network. The increased VMT would lead to higher
MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a
corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions
increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds;
according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs
except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which
these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases
cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it
is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among
the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely
be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000
and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet
mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the
magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT
growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will
have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, and businesses; therefore,
under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of
MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative.
The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along
the new alignment segments and along the sides of existing roadways where symmetrical
widening occurs. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these
potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified
due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened
and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the
Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be
offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with
lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic
shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations,
coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all
cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a
variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized
levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds
from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where
traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria
pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel
has increased rapidly.
The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which complies with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or
creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this nonattainment area
C. Traffic Noise
The project proposes to replace the existing grade separation with an interchange.
Several alternatives were evaluated, but none of these improvements provide additional
through lanes along I-485. A "worst case" noise analysis for the build conditions
determined the maximum extent of the 66 dBA noise contours is 84 feet (25.7 meters),
from the centerline of Weddington Road (SR 3468) for the year 2025. All residences in
this area are located outside of this noise contour that would define a traffic noise impact
from the proposed improvements to Weddington Road (SR 3468).
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
D. Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Effects
The half clover leaf interchange allowed the avoidance of multiple residential
properties in Providence Plantation subdivision and multiple businesses located in the
Plantation Market Plaza. Efforts to minimize impacts continued through the extension of
a concrete box culvert at the project terminus for an unnamed tributary to Four Mile
Creek. Though one resident will be displaced and one business will be directly impacted,
the design minimizes effects to the human and natural environment.
E. Relocation Program
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help
minimize the effects of displacement on families. The occupant of the affected residence
may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will
be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board, of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation advisory services
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of
replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are
given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation
of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to
public utilities and commercial facilities.. Rent and sale prices of replacement property
will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will be
reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also
assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state
or federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of
time before displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income
for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may
be used if necessary.
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
In accordance with provisions Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will
be required from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for discharge of dredge or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." Due to potential wetland and stream impacts,
an individual permit may be necessary for this project. Final decisions concerning
applicable permits rest with the US Army Corps of Engineers. This project will require a
401 Water Quality Certification from the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) was approved by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on May 25, 2007
The approved EA was sent to the following federal, state and local agencies for review
and comment. An asterisk indicates a response was received from that agency.
*Environmental Protection Agency
Dept of Homeland Security
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Raleigh
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Water Quality
*Division of Environmental Health
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from several
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate.
US Environmental Protection Agency
Comment:
"The project need is based on capacity and access to I-485 (the EA refers
to other TIP projects R-2248 & R-4902 needing to be built)."
Response:
The referenced projects are programmed in the TIP and are in place to add
capacity to I-485. These projects are not in conflict with the proposed interchange
at Weddington Road.
Comment:
10
"The benefits of the new interchange rely almost exclusively on 8-lanes on
I-485."
Response:
The implementation of the new interchange will benefit the neighboring
interchanges at Providence Road and East John Street by creating a different
access point to I-485. This new access point will allow current traffic to avoid
traversing McKee Road and/or John Street to access I-485 thus reducing traffic
flow along the local network. The entire local network may see benefits from
adding lanes to I-485, but the benefits of the proposed interchange will be realized
prior to the implementation of them.
Comment:
"Every loop and ramp at the three interchanges will be LOS F with the
Build alternative in 2025. The I-485 segments at all three interchanges is LOS F
in the 2025 design year. (850 Vehicles added in the design year peak hour)."
Response:
While the loop/ramp combinations and segments along I-485 are projected
to be a LOS F in the design year, it will be a better LOS with the implementation
of the project rather than without the project.
Comment:
"FH WA and NCDOT have maintainedthat 5-lane sections are unsafe
(Weddington Road). Other options considered?"
Response:
The proposed project does not fall into that same category because of the
® location and nature of the project. The proposal for this section of project will be
controlled by use of the concrete median and proposed signalization for every
® intersection. Many of the turning movements are not full turn movements, but
right-in right-out movements due to the concrete median. The bridge will use the
five lane scenario for turning movement storage in the interchange. The median
will begin at the McKee Road terminus and end at the intersection of the south
loop/ramp combination and Plantation Center Drive. The next placement for the
proposed median will be from the intersection of the northern loop/ramp
combination and Plantation Drive to beyond the northernmost entrance to
Winterbrooke Subdivision.
4D
0
Comment:
"Other alternatives considered? Northwest and Southwest quadrants?
Northeast and Southeast quadrants? Etc. what was the basis for selecting the
northeast and southeast quadrants?"
Response:
The ramps and loops were located in the eastern quadrant in order to
reduce impacts to the existing development primarily located on the west side of
Weddington Road (SR 3468). With the recommended alternative there will be
one residential relocation and no relocation of businesses.
Comment:
"What other options for improving existing interchanges at NC 16 and
John Street were considered?"
Response:
The scope of this project does not include the improvement of the
surrounding interchanges. Therefore no options for improving adjacent
interchanges were considered. It should be noted that improvements have been
made to the interchange at Providence Road as part of a previous TIP Project.
Further improvements to the adjacent interchanges would not eliminate the need
for this project.
Comment:
"Safety? Conflicts with bicycles at new ramps/traffic lights?"
Response:
NCDOT will provide additional pavement along Weddington Road (SR
3468) to accommodate cyclists. The project provides a half-clover interchange
design with traffic signals at the ramps and loops, minimizing the number of
conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. The proposed design also includes
1.8-meter (6-foot) bridge offsets, bicycle-safe bridge rails, and 1.2-meter (4-foot)
paved shoulders that meet AASHTO standards for bicycle safety.
Comment:
"Page 55 refers to UTs to Fourmile Creek and the Biological Conclusion
for Carolina heelspitter (Page 51) refers to Six Mile Creek (?)
Response:
12
The Biological Conclusion for this project should only refer to the UTs to
Four Mile Creek. There are no anticipated impacts to Six Mile Creek or Four
Mile Creek. Both creeks are within the growth study area that was expanded
beyond the project study area at the request of the Federal Highway
Administration in order to analyze interchanges adjacent to the proposed project.
Comment:
"Table 28 (Streams in the Growth Impact Study Area) only lists South
Fork Crooked Creek."
Response:
Table 28 should have been a table listing water resources located in the
project area. The revised table is located in this document under revisions to the
EA. The water resources located within the project area are three (3) ephemeral
channels and two (2) perennial tributaries to Four Mile Creek as listed in the EA
page 55 under Water Resources - Characteristics.
Comment:
"There is no map indicating where the streams are located in the project
study area."
Response:
See figure 3 in appendix A for mapping of the stream locations in the
project area.
Comment:
"CAA requirements need to be in a separate section and not combined
with NOISE (Alternating paragraphs)?
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
"EPA does not concur with the statement regarding "...this project in not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on air quality in this attainment area".
13
Response:
An updated air quality report was conducted since the completion of the
EA. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on air quality in
this area (see Appendix Q.
Comment:
"Evaluate MSATs in relation to the YMCA and Assisted Living facility
being next to existing I-485 and future failing I-485 segments and future ramps
and loops operating at LOS F."
Response:
An evaluation for MSATs for the areas in question was performed (See
Appendix Q. There are no anticipated impacts regarding air quality in relation to
the Siskey YMCA or the Assisted Living Facility.
Comment:
"Provide the detailed noise analysis of residences, business, etc. The worst
case noise analysis for the build conditions determined the maximum extent of the
66 dBA noise contour is 84 feet (from Weddington Road). EPA requests the
noise analysis from I-485 centerline to potentially impacted receptors."
Response:
A detailed Noise Analysis of residences, business, etc was performed
including both predicted noise levels for Weddington Road (L) and I-485 (Y).
Table 6 of the noise report identifies both noise sources, the predicted contours
and predicted noise levels. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level
contours for SR 3648 (Weddington Road) widening and for I-485, measured from
the center of the proposed roadways are 101 feet and 260 feet respectively. Both
of these predicted levels were combined for applicable Noise receptors and
identified noise impacts were noted (see Appendix Q.
Comment:
"Matthews Town Board objects to the Weddington Road Interchange. The
project is in conflict with the local land use plan and zoning plans. Resolution?"
Response:
While the Town of Matthews representative voted against the proposal,
the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the
project. The zoning for the Town of Matthews and The City of Charlotte are
14
independent of the design and construction of the interchange. The zoning of any
of the properties along the project corridor remain under the jurisdiction of the
municipality responsible.
Comment:
"What efforts were made to avoid and minimize impacts to the natural
environment? What efforts are being made to minimize the effects of induced
development from the project?"
Response:
The project study area lies within one of the fastest growing areas in the
state. While there are questions as to whether growth is induced through some
roadway projects there are also questions as to whether projects are needed
because of rapid growth in certain areas. The land use and zoning plans are
effective in controlling the growth in areas such as this. NCDOT has
communicated with local planning commissions for the municipalities and
continues to work together to provide viable solutions for land use and
transportation needs.
US Department Of The Interior - Fish And Wildlife Service
Comment:
"We were unable to find a map displaying the watershed boundaries of
Sixmile and Fourmile Creek or a summary impact table in the document.
Therefore, we remain concerned that this project could directly impact the
headwaters of Sixmile creek. There is no map or description of the study area
boundaries. "
Response:
See the summary impact table under revisions to the EA in this document.
Also see appendix A figure 3 for mapping. Six Mile Creek will not be directly
impacted by this project.
Comment:
"There is no local discussion on why the local community objects to the
interchange or how it impacts their land-use and zoning plans."
Response:
The overall local community is in favor of the proposed project. The
Town of Matthews voted against the project when the Mecklenburg-Union
15
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) voted to implement the project in
its local and regional thoroughfare plan. The MUMPO has documentation
available to the public detailing the process to implement the project. The
proposed project is also listed in the Charlotte- Mecklenburg South District Plan,
the I-485 Interchange Analysis Report, the Town of Stallings Land Use Plan and
the Town of Indian Trail Land Use Plan. The proposed project does not affect
existing land use or zoning plans.
Comment:
"Neither Figure 3 and 4 were included in our copy of the EA. In particular,
statements made in reference to Figure 3 would be much clearer if the figure were
available."
Response:
The reference to figures 3 and 4 were to illustrate the undeveloped land.
located to the east of Weddington Road and to the east of McKee Road. Updated
mapping for this area can be found in appendix A figure 4. The property on the
east of Weddington Road has since been developed. Portions of the land along
McKee Road have been developed as well and there are plans for future
residential developments in the area.
Comment:
"A difference is demonstrated, the LOS will be worse if the project is
built. The document also indicates that with or without the project, I-485 will
operate at an unacceptable LOS but the design year 2025. There is no discussion
regarding planning for any of these future improvements, and we were not clear
about whether the proposed interchange itself would need to be upgraded if these
future improvements were deemed necessary.
Response:
This project will not and is not intended to improve the capacity or level of
service for I-485. Future widening projects that add lanes to I-485 will improve
capacity and level of service. This project will help to improve the level of
service for the local network of facilities by redirecting some traffic from the
neighboring interchanges and the facilities used to access them. The
redistribution of traffic flow throughout the local network will be beneficial and
allow citizens in the immediate project area to benefit from improved access to I-
485.
16
Comment:
"We are still concerned about potential impacts associated with the project
to the important Headwater area of Sixmile Creek, the Carolina Heelsplitter, and
all other streams that drain the project area and vicinity. NCDOT proactively
address induced growth and its related impacts by implementing techniques such
as access control and working with the local government to help develop and
adopt protective zoning and comprehensive planning, Comprehensive planning
for this area should include a conservation strategy for the Carolina Heelsplitter to
help offset impacts to the long-term survival and recovery of the species.
Response:
The proposed project will not have a direct impact to Six Mile Creek. The
Biological Conclusion for the Carolina Heelsplitter is "No Effect". The induced
growth that would result from the implementation of the proposed project will be
minimal based on the fact that there are not many locations available. The growth
in the area seems to have preceded the implementation of the proposed project.
While NCDOT is not responsible for the zoning and regulations set forth by the
municipalities, we work closely with local planning departments in the
development of Comprehensive Transportation Plans.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"The document indicated the water resources in the project area are
tributaries to Foutmile Creek, however Table 28 lists only South Fork Crooked
Creek in Growth Impact Study Area. Four Mile Creek lies in the north of the
project and the closest streams to the south are Sixmile Creek and West Fork
Twelvemile Creek. South Fork Crooked Creek lies east of the Twelvemile Creek
watershed and east of Independence Boulevard.
Response:
The revisions to the EA are listed in this document. The Growth Impact
Study area covers an area larger than the area of potential effect to the natural
environment. The Growth Impact Study.area was developed to analyze the
system of. interchanges along the interstate and how they would be affected by the
implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project will not directly
impact most of the resources within the Growth Impact Study area. See appendix
A figure 3 for details of resources in relation to the project location.
17
Comment:
"Direct impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial resources from the project
construction are expected to be minimal; however, NCWRC is very concerned
about secondary and cumulative impacts associated with this project. According
to the document, it is likely that the project will increase the rate if development
already occurring and influences where development will occur. Potential for
induced residential growth is high on the east side of Weddington Road and
McKee Road and further east along McKee Road. The market for development is
extremely high within the Growth Impact Study Area. No access control is
proposed for Weddington Road.
Response:
After further consideration and in light of the rapid development of the
area, this project will have minimal influence on where development will occur.
The areas where development can still occur are minimal. These areas are
directly influenced by the zoning the local municipalities have in place.
Comment:
" There was very little mention of terrestrial communities, such as amount
of existing forested land or open space, if any is protected from development and
how the secondary growth from the project will affect these lands and wildlife
habitat. A more in -depth analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts to area
resources is needed."
Response:
The proposed project will be implemented in an area that is developed.
The direct impacted areas are built out. It appears that growth in this area has
preceded the proposed project. Therefore the protection of areas with
development potential has been monitored by local municipalities through zoning
and other regulations.
Comment:
"We indicated in our scoping comments that the purpose and need for the
project would need to justify the expected impacts. The purpose is to improve
access to I-485 from Weddington Road and the surrounding communities in
Weddington, Matthews, and Charlotte City limits. The analysis shows similar
Levels Of Service (LOS) between the Build and No-Build scenarios; however,
where there are differences, the LOS is worse if the project is build. We question
whether the benefits of the proposed projects outweigh the impacts."
18
Response:
The proposed interchange will improve access to I-485 via Weddington
Road. The implementation of the proposed interchange will also improve the
flow of traffic along the local network. I-485 will not improve without additional
improvements made to that facility. Proposed improvements, i.e. additional lanes
will help to improve the level of service to accommodate future traffic. It should
be noted that this interchange will not introduce new traffic to I-485 overall, but
only redistribute or disperse traffic that exists or is projected.
Comment:
1-485 will operate at an unacceptable level of service by the design year
2025 with or with out the project. In order for all freeway segments, ramps, and
weave sections to operate at LOS D or better in the design year, I-485 will need to
be widened to eight lanes and a ramp on the NC 16 interchange would need to be
widened."
Response:
The proposed interchange will improve access to I-485 via Weddington
Road. The implementation of the proposed interchange will also improve the
flow of traffic along the local network. Though the current I-485 would have
potential issues with levels of service, it (I-485) was constructed with the ability
to add lanes within the right of way limits. There are areas along I-485 where
widening is underway.
Comment:
"we reiterate that NCDOT and local authorities should commit to
measures that will reduce the cumulative and secondary impacts expected from
this project in order to protect stream, and water quality, wildlife habitat, and
listed species, including the Endangered Carolina heelsplitter."
Response:
The immediate area surrounding the proposed project is primarily
residential or zoned residential. The subdivisions adjacent to the interchange
location are built out. The lone property adjacent to the project with future
development plans is the Siskey Family YMCA. The current expansion plan for
the Siskey YMCA includes expanding outdoor ball fields for recreational
purposes. In areas that are not considered directly adjacent to the proposed
project, but within the study area, new commercial developments have been
constructed or are under construction.
19
4. NC DENR-Division of Water Ouality
Comment:
"Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that
reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water run off. These
alternatives shall include road design that allow for treatment of the storm water
runoff through the best management practices as detailed in the most recent
versions of NCDWQ Storm Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc."
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
"After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of
the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that
they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands (and streams) to maximum extent practical."
Response:
NCDOT has demonstrated avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical for the proposed
interchange through meetings and coordination particularly in reference to
extending the box culvert at the ramp acceleration and deceleration tapers. Also,
the selected alternative provides a tighter loop/ramp combination allowing more
of a buffer between the majority of the proposed facility and the unnamed
tributary in the project vicinity.
Comment:
"In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules
(15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of the greater
than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation
plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation"
Response:
Mitigation will not be required as part of this project.
20
Comment:
"NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not
limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetland,
streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations.
These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise,
also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application."
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
"Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu
of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the
use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts. shall be countersunk to allow
unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas
where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a
bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge
bents in the creek. To the maximum extent practicable.
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
"Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of
impacts to wetlands and streams may require a Nationwide (NW) Permit
application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are
met and no wetland or stream uses are lost."
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
" Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and
wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all
21
culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life."
Response:
Comment noted.
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 128, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held and the
social, economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning
goals and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the
selection of the recommended alternative for the project.
NCDOT held a combined public hearing on August 20, 2007 at Town Hall located
in Matthews. An open house was conducted from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm and a formal
hearing from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. Approximately 200 people attended.
The following is a representative summary of the Public Hearing Comments:
The property owners and residents that attended the public hearing had varied
opinions about the project. NCDOT representatives addressed questions and concerns
during the open house portion of the hearing and listened to other concerns during the
formal portion of the hearing. Much of the hearing centered on projected traffic volumes
and the ability to make full turning movements at more intersections. Public concerns
referenced the effect the proposed traffic would have on Weddington Road, the
subdivision entrances along Weddington Road, neighboring thoroughfares and the Town
of Matthews. The major public concern was continued access to and from Plantation
Market via Weddington Road. The majority of attendees requested that the loop/ramp
combination in the southeast quadrant be realigned to form an intersection with
Plantation Center Drive at Plantation Market. Representatives of each subdivision
expressed concern about the proposed median limiting left turn movements, but each
representative admitted that it is currently difficult and dangerous to make those left
turns.
Based on the comments at the public hearing, NCDOT agreed to realign the
southeast quadrant loop/ramp combination from just north of Plantation Center Drive to
immediately across from Plantation Center Drive. The intersection will be signalized
allowing full movement to Weddington Road from the Plantation Market shopping center
and office park; however it will eliminate the northern driveway entrance/exit to the
Siskey YMCA on Weddington Road. The southern entrance to the YMCA will remain
as well as access from McKee Road.
22
2. Written Comments:
Comment: I have lived in Winterbrooke for 17 years. At this time we can hardly take
a left turn out of the development. When we built this house, we knew about
the interchange, but was told it would be further down towards McKee Road.
The DOT is now going to build it close to people's houses. We don't want it
to min the neighborhood we live in. Also, by not having a better way to get
out of the neighborhood, you are making our trip to the shopping center
almost impossible. I go to that shopping center daily and this plan will make
it impossible to get back to Winterbrooke. With more traffic due to the
interchange, more backups will result. You are just creating another
Providence Road. That needs to be fixed before we add more problems.
There is no way this interchange should stop at Plantation Road.
Response: With the implementation of the proposed interchanges, improvements will
be made to add pavement to Weddington Road in the immediate project area.
Signalization will also be added to help direct the flow of traffic. The
intersection of the southern loop/ramp combination with the exit at Plantation
Market will be signalized with full movements for Weddington Road. This
improvement will ensure entrance to and exit from the shopping center. Also,
the proposed project should allow patrons to access I-485 immediately instead
of navigating the local network seeking another access point along I-485.
Comment: We live in Marvin, Union County, NC. Our family owns the office
building at the southwest comer of the intersection of Weddington Road and
Plantation Center Drive. My mother lives in the assisted living center on the
northwest comer of the intersection of Weddington Road and Plantation
Center Drive. My family'owns a condominium in the Plantation Office Park.
I am a member of the board of directors of both the landowners' association
and the condominium association with respect to properties located on
Plantation Center Drive. We use the Siskey YMCA at the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of 1-485 and Weddington Road. We frequently drive north
on Weddington Road to and beyond its intersection with Pleasant Plains. We
also frequently drive on the affected section of I-485.
We are strongly in favor of the construction of the proposed interchange.
We believe that in general the interchange and the widening of Weddington
Road will help the flow of traffic in the area and incrementally help control air
quality. We do not believe that the interchange project will increase traffic.
Contrary to some comments at the public hearing, additional commercial
development in close proximity to the interchange is not likely to occur as a
result of constructing the interchange. There is no additional raw land
available for this purpose. (As noted at the hearing, an effort to rezone for
higher residential density the northeast quadrant of the I-485 Weddington
Road intersection failed. At the hearing, Matthews Town Mayor Lee Myers
seemed confident that any future effort to rezone this parcel would also fail.)
23
However, whether or not the interchange is built, nearby areas, especially the
extended southeast quadrant, will continue to develop, either by infill
development or by development of raw land. This development will not be in
close proximity to the proposed interchange location but will nevertheless
significantly increase traffic in the area. While it is possible that building the
interchange might marginally influence nearby development, all evidence to
date is that nearby development will be significant with or without the
interchange. Therefore, the existing traffic problems on Weddington Road,
McKee Road, and I-485 and its existing nearby interchanges will get worse
over time. It stands to reason that the interchange project will help because it
will necessarily reduce the vehicle-miles driven in the area, by affording
another point of access to I-485 and thereby an option for a shorter drive that
will be taken by many.
Although I do not speak officially on behalf of the Owners' Association of
Plantation Office Park, I did canvass all of the directors of this Association (of
which, as noted, I am one). All of the directors support the construction of the
interchange, although many voiced the same concerns about project design.
We would like to see the aligning of the interchange with Plantation center
Drive providing full movement onto Weddington Road. from the office park.
Response: Based on the response at the public hearing and subsequent written
comments, NCDOT will provide full movement onto Weddington Road from
the office park and shopping center with signalization at Plantation center
Drive.
Comment: The level of service (LOS) on Weddington Road will deteriorate. The
current LOS "F" of Weddington Road will be more congested and the existing
significant delays will increase, not decreasB. The traffic,hazards on
Weddington Road, in adjoining residential neighborhoods, at the YMCA and
the McKee Road intersection will become more dangerous. A traffic light is
needed at Plantation Road, with a future access road provision made for the
land that this proposal would isolate.
Response: While the Siskey YMCA and the shopping center on Weddington Road
are the major trip generators in the project vicinity, many of the trips along
the Weddington Road, McKee Road, Pleasant Plains, John street corridors
have different destinations. Many of these destinations are in other areas of
the adjoining counties and access to I-485 is warranted. Once access is
created in this area, some of the trips that utilize these corridors will now use
the proposed new access point. Signalization and channelization along
Weddington Road will help minimize hazards along the corridor.
Comment: At the hearing it became clear that one purpose of the Weddington/I-485
interchange was to reduce traffic at the John Street and Hwy 16 interchanges
by increasing the traffic congestion on Weddington. The traffic congestion on
24
Weddington is already in need of relief and should be addressed by improving
Weddington, not by adding traffic. This interchange proposal will make an
existing overloaded traffic situation worse. It is a bad decision to improve a
commercial interchange and an undeveloped interchange to the detriment of a
residential area. The highway department must respond to requests from
MUMPO, BUMPO and DUMBO. It is obvious that the DOT engineers have
done their best in designing this interchange. This is a road plan that destroys
the convenience and livability of the residential communities in the
surrounding areas.
Response: The proposed interchange will be an immediate access point for current
traffic utilizing Weddington Road to get to I-485. Some of the traffic that
accesses I-485 via John Street and Providence Road interchanges come from
the local networks that are currently congested. Instead of traveling the local
network to access I-485, this traffic will now access I-485 immediately from
Weddington Road, thus removing some congestion from the local network.
Comment: If the interchange is implemented, make the area safe by adding the proper
turn lanes and signalizing for optimum traffic flow.
Response: The proper turn lanes and signalization will be implemented to provide
safety for the neighborhoods and traffic along Weddington Road.
Comment: This proposal is fixing one problem and creating another. There should
not be any medians blocking neighborhood entrances or access to either side
of Weddington Road. The redesign should share both sides of Weddington
Road with full access to all in either direction.
Response: There will be full access in either direction at specified intersections along
the project used in conjunction with signalization. Providing right in right out
movements at specified locations will provide a safer more effective facility.
Comment: Matthews has a very serious traffic problem as it is in the AM and PM on
Weddington Road feeding into Trade Street. An interchange would make this
traffic worse as more and more union county residents will use this to get to
Charlotte and/or home. The best improvement to Weddington Road would be
to make it three lanes, utilizing a middle turn lane. It is very congested in
front of Plantation Market.
Response: Matthews does experience congestion in the AM and PM peak hours for
Weddington Road and Trade Street. Though a project to widen Weddington
Road is not programmed, Weddington Road improvements were implemented
through the NC Moving Ahead Program. Additional pavement provided
standard lane widths and paved shoulders. The Union County residents that
will use the proposed facility should occupy the routes that continue south
from the project. Union County residents continuing into Matthews have a
25
destination there and would not utilize the interchange during those specified
trips.
Comment: These specific safety issues should be considered for the Winterbrooke
subdivision: A. Emergency vehicles need easy access to both sides of
neighborhood for a fast response. The need to turn left into either entrance
would be prevented by the median. B. Turning left out of the Honey Creek
Lane entrance is dangerous without a light.
Response: There are several intersections along Weddington Road, but all of them
will not be allotted signalization. Some of the entrances to subdivisions are in
close proximity to areas where a signal is currently being proposed. While the
median concept may not be a convenient measure for every situation, it does
provide a safe facility by prohibiting certain movements that are currently and
become increasingly more difficult to make over time.
Comment: Align the exit ramp with Plantation Office Park. There is too much traffic
at the YMCA / ABC Store entrances now. A closer interchange is needed, but
not prior to a major fix for the current roads. A light is needed at Honey
Creek Lane if a barrier will cover the Winterbrooke exit.
Response: NCDOT will align the exit ramp in the southeast quadrant with Plantation
center Drive.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Cost Estimates
The approved 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes
total funding of $18,250,000 for the project with $6,100,000 for right of way and
$11,500,000 for construction. Currently, the project is estimated to cost $18,425,000,
which includes $6,275,000 for right of way acquisition and $11,500,000 for construction
and 650,000 in prior planning costs.
B. Bridge / Culvert Recommendation
The recommended alternative proposes to extend the 6 x 6 foot box culvert on the
unnamed tributary to Four Mile Creek to accommodate the acceleration/deceleration
ramps to I-485 from Weddington Road. The extension of this culvert is not anticipated to
have an adverse effect on the environment.
C. Sidewalks
The City of Charlotte and the Town of Matthews have verbally requested
sidewalks along the project. Upon receipt of written requests from the City of Charlotte
and the Town of Matthews, municipal agreements will be developed with each
26
municipality to finalize the cost sharing for the implementation of sidewalks in the
respective municipality's jurisdiction. The Town of Matthews has jurisdiction over the
east side, while the City of Charlotte has jurisdiction over the west side of the roadway
within the project area.
D. Federally-Protected Species
A freshwater mussel survey was performed for the proposed extension of the 6' x
6' box culvert on the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to four mile creek. A review of the
February 13, 2008 Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was performed to
determine if records of rare mussels were within the proposed project study area or
receiving waters. This review did not indicate the known presence of the federally
protected Carolina Heelsplitter (CHS) within the project study area or in the UT to Four
Mile Creek. The UT to Four Mile Creek at the project crossing is a shallow
(approximately 3 inches deep), low flowing stream, approximately 1 meter wide in a
heavily urbanized (suburban-type) development. At the project site, this system is not,
considered habitat for CHS.
. As a result of this survey as well as the habitat requirements, and the historical
range and distribution of CHS. The UT to Four Mile Creek is not considered adequate
habitat for this mussel species. In summary, the biological conclusion for the Carolina
Heelsplitter is revised to "No Effect."
E. Surface Waters Affected Within the Project Study Area
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3

Tributaries to Fourmile Creek 0.06 ac O.Olac O.Olac
(area) (0.02 ha) (0.004 ha) (0.004 ha)
Tributaries to Fourmile Creek 3101f(951m) 40 if (12 ]m) 401f (12 lm)
(linear distance)
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the
project will not have a significant impact upon the quality of the human or natural
environment. No significaht impacts on natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources
are expected. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined that a Finding of
No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Neither an Environmental Impact
statement nor further analysis is required.,
27
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
1 -
16 51 UY7 eQ6Y 1® 74
PCP 19 893 -
4B5
I
\ V
?
1 1010
'f7

5700
18 0)0
7 ?

3406 34 _
3"4
.. .... ' ?uq sem s?1s,•

? eeIts

. ' 367
. - v 300 5513 1393
3"7
\
4}_40
'
- I
18
3445
r?7
3408
_ _ ua

luz
y'
4888 _ _ - 6701 :4N
f" i

485 36 4
?! 1
4oBe 9n
M72 ' 1357
, 192
/ 6708
i
i
167 y''
i

I
T
I
NORI CAROUNA CVARIMRQ
OF 114HPOVAIM
i !IOMCF OpOCFM*ff AND
&W00 VMMAf1WO ¦VM
1-485 (CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP)
INTERCHANGE
AT WEDDINGTON ROAD
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO.R-O211EC
FIGURE I - VICINITY MAP
f
?a.r l7
Mecklenburg
a County
ington
?I
yy
f.

f0581,4Y'
v1
ews
;a\ F 'aa 74
r o a
00`5881142\?? \ tstallln s Y
ti? it a ,l?'C'/ '?Yo•' /
, \ ? l?ty??' \Z ''sue x
?.c r Indla Trail \?
008211 J a \
CIL AI 011
-! 00582 2" Wed gton a••.,

w 20 10 0 20
Miles
S
•
Project
® Demographic Study Area
L__A Impact Assessment Area
® Block Groups
Roads
Rivers/Streams
G=:°= :lj City/Town Corporate Limits
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
a
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Weddington, Meclenburg County
The Intersection of Weddington Road
and 1-485 (James Martin Freeway)
T.I.P. Project No. R-0211 EC
Charlotte Zoning
B-1 / B-1CD
® B-1SCD
® B2 / B-2CD
® cc Charlotte
O INST / MX-1 / NS
D O-1CD
O-15CD
D R-15CD / R-15MF / R-15PUD
D R-12CD / R-12MF
O R-9CD / R-9PUD
R-8CD / R-8MFCD \
0 R-5CD r
O R-4 / R-4CD
O R-3 / R-3CD
O
Matthews
Matthews Zoning
® B1/B1CD
B1SCD
® B2
[ CRC
Cond
HUC
11 / 11 CD
©I2
O 015
D 09 / 09CD
O R4
R9
O R12 / R12CD / R12CL
® R12MFC
O R15 / R15CD / R15CL
O R20/R20CL
O RI / RICD ?.
WON R M H
D RU w e
O RVS
S
5,000 2,500 0 5,000
Feet
• Project
Demographic Study Area
City/Town Corporate Limits
FIGURE 4
T.I.P. Project No. R-0211 EC
Zoning
APPENDIX B
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
r s,
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easlev, Governor
July 18. 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Britt Cobb, Secretary
Subject: Environmental Assessment - Proposal to construct an interchange for I-485 at
Weddington Road to improve Weddington Road from the McKee Road intersection to
the Winterbrook subdivision in Mecklenburg County. TIP No. R-021 1 EC
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 08-E-4220-0020. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 08/18/2007 . Should you have any
questions. please call (919)807-242?.
Sincerely.

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
cc: Undrea Major, Project Engineer
,flailing Addrese Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail service Center Pas 19191733-9i71 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh. NC 27699-1301 State Courier 4i 1.01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail: Chrvs. Ba-edit ncrnad.net
art Equal Oppnrnrnur'd(liruiatrvr Acurgri Errrplorer
fie. surzo..
North Carolina
RECEIVED
Division of Highways
AUG 2 7 2007
Department of • Administration Prewnstnlction
Michael F. Easley, Governor
August 23. 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Project DevelopmEN and
Britt CO%i n"lAnal wBran&
Re: SCH File # 08-E-4220-0020; EA; Proposal to construct an interchange for 1-485 at Weddington
Road to improve Weddington Road from the McKee Road intersection to the Winterbrook
subdivision in Mecklenburg County. TIP No. R-021 I EC
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Please be
sure that the concerns are addressed prior to the FONS1.
If any further environmental revic\\ documents are prepared for this project. they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. C'hrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region F
Region K
Alailing.4 ddress: Telephone: [phone]
1101 Mail Service Center Fm 19111)7330571
Raleigh. NC' 27699-1301 State courier eil-111-UO
e.nrud (7n,t.c H?,ege¢4innnnd. nel
,In Eyn,+l Opparrunm I(/irm";me Inrnrr Fn+plnn•r
Locution Address:
116 West lones Street
Raleieh. North Carolina
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a=_I asley, Gevemcr
•rr
RE:
.... -? 5dcg?-tat

J;11:12, Ross Jr . Secretary
Rcad
The Department of F.:.. _?.:...._..t arc NA-c=al Resources :^.as =e'riewed the
prcpozt tiec_.
5e':a-al areas _r. ...a a_cact_d
and --° °i-ioII '-
Wate= 2'_a: a•;. we as,
_:.?-
?" `-- -_.. -...c .-,r
-°a?sr:r. tat ... .. ......
. ...... ....

c........
_.._ .?__.... -'- - ?--
- .. _
__. -,''dre,__..

wt .
tn?
t-
?' Semce 0er,e R2 yr ;don` r 1%r
Pncne 919-733-4984 =4X c,19 15.30. l s.ww.e s' .., ..C isENRi
\orthCarolina
./ wturallry

°?` r .17 t ? ? .y
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Coinmission,.'.2
Rre.har;! !3. f I;nltll::vt. I:. cclu ,c Dirrcin,.
lYl: Melba McGee. En-, uonmcmt it Coordinator
Ot ice of I egjslati%e and Luergmernmcnt I :\;lairs. DENR
I KO?•1: Marla Chambers. \\ csicrn \(f)O'C Permit Coordinator
Hahjtat Consen ation 1'ro•:rari. NC.\\ RC

S BMICT: ReN ie%N of the Fn%izonrrtntal :\sscssniont liar NCDOT's proposed interchange for
1-484. Wliarlottc (hoer Lugo; at SR >468 i\\cddincton Roadi Mcckienhuna
Count.. Ill' Nt, 01.1 ,\ Proiect Number: US-O(_10. due date:
S
North Carolimi Deveutment of Irans^ortaii,nt tNCDOT)
Lm ironniental AsseSSmcllt document ti)r the sllblect proiec,.
Carolina \\ i!dhlc Resource Conlnl:ision ":C N KC i hate :.
hhese a>m:rents arc ?n>cided i:•: s:•.•r.Lnct ??jth d-.c rr,,,•i.i.•1
i'oiicN Act i4_ I*.S.(.
amended: 1 h (.S.('- bti 1-66'd;.
has submitted for re%iew an
StatT biol;);ists vJih the North
i;::ed the information proxided.
:s ra' for \ ti. na! Em ironmenta!
..sdination .\:t t43 Slat. 461. a?
file NCDOT proposes to construct an intcrchan_c for l-?85 t(hariotte Outer Loopi at SR 3468
t \\'eddinaton Road). \\'eddineton Road Dr ill be wdened to a tide-lane curb and caner roadwaN
\%:Ih Ic1i turn lanes :.t ramp and ioup in;c: rctions. Sldcualks ?%di be included on the west Sid:
of the bridge. The document indicated the water resources in the project area are tributaries IQ
Fourmile Creek, lto«cNer'fable 28 hsb unk. South Fork Crooked Creek in (: To th Tmt+:lct Stad's
area. Fourmite Creek. L", u lh nottil of the prgiect and the closest streams to the south ate;
".
Sixmile Creek and Vest Fork T% eh emile Creek. South Fork Crooked Creek lies cast oL lte
Twelvemile Creek watershed and cat of Independence Boulevard.
Si.emik Creek is ic 'nahired h• ;! :: .e?'.::`:I'? I:nda:r_ee;;::i Crr;,ln !t:cl_rliitr ii-,csmi,?u,m
urarut. and is on :.,. 0',fd; ... .,1 :. r, :: red ,c:ner< Si rniie Creek is :!>J init. bitcd b the
Carolina crc k Ise!; i ..: r, ,. ur. na ... .. :t 1 c.'.er l of Col:Certt :m State Endan_crcd
species: the ea>tcri ereek.hcll I St g^ .iticantl?. Rare: an_: ,,:her mussel
Mailing Address: hr:ision of Inland i khcrics • 1721 Nhii Scr.is Cent r Kaici_I,, N( 27699-121
Telephone: Fos: i919, 7071-001S
R-a?I: FC.!-15j hlla, trx, a: +. .... .ci: .+kc 2111 '
ptipUlationS. A record of the notchcci IZlMintl" i l nlzr ri,ur,'- scat; Special Ciltlcerll (SC). occurs
itl West Fork Tx%e!-Cnlile Crock iiu'.\nSreaRl oh t1:C proleCt in !lniOn COUnty:. South Fork
Crooked Creek is or, the 103(d) list and is inhabited b\ U number of listed species.
Direct impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources from the project construction are expected S
be minimal: however. \CWRC is very concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts
associated with this project. The project `.icinin' has cepc;icnced tremendous gro\ith. Between
199o and 2000 the demographic area pre\+ b\' 65.6'., compared to \lecklenburu County's
,!rowth rate of =6.(l%. Union Count\"S -''6.9'' and the suite's Y?'O\Ct!I rate of 21.4q;. 1hC four
quadrutu of the proposed interscetlon Sire milstl\' Lie%elope::. bUt areas to the south, iii; lhlding the
next maior intersection i\leddin,uti+n Road McKee Road intersection) and be`.ond. are still
undeveloped. According to the document, it is likely that the project will increase the rate of'
development already occurring and intluence where development %ViIJ_g, c ur. Potential .,for,
induced residential ero\cth is high on the cast side of Weddinaton Road and McKee Road and
further cast along McKee Road. The market for development is extremely hiLlh within the
Growth Impact Study Area. No access contra! is proposed for Weddington Road.
i)c$ptlC Off request in the scopin_ coniincri!? dated We nub,:- 'ii =C I(16. estirnate; )!'current and
expected future levels of ilnpcnIOUS n+cera e acre no, provided. \um rous studies hare
slliJwn that \%hen i0-l;"C o a \?atcrSiwd 1 comeried t0 iripcr\l Otis surfaces. there l a serious
decline in the health of receivin waters (Schuyler 1990 and the quality: of fish habitat and
wetlands are neeati\el\' impacted (Booth 1 191, Taylor 19931. dome of the waters in the project
'vicinity are alrcad\' impaired, as noted abr+yc. most like!% due to development: No information
was provided about the streams or watersheds most likely to by impacted by secondary growth.
filere was no mention of ho\y these :esrurces arc likel. to be impacted and no measures were
proposed by \CDOT or the local authorities to minimize the expected impacts. such as access
control, storni%%aiyr re_u ations. IIn11t5 Oil !I1lpe7yl0US CM--a-_e, Or pt'otcctl\y riParian buffers for
re\\ development. Onl\ znnint_ and ;aio`•\an!c 110LIS n_ Cl.nsitics wcry pro'; idrd. Only the local
LA k1 eddlriLton %\as listed as ha\inz a pro:. c.ti\e me .iure for open sraCC, in Uf11ch halt of the
Ltnd within a nc\\ slbdi\ ision must be sct :cidC for oper. spacC.
There was ver\ little mention of terresI.;a! arlrlnn:nites. sU:h as amount of existing forested WIT
or open space. if am' is protected tiom de\clopnlcn: and ho%y the secondary urcmih from the
project will aflect these lands and \sildlir'e habitat. As mitund arc: s disappear and \`.aier quality'
declines. the quality of life for area residents is also ne_ati-, elc affected. Mcdsures to mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts can be hlund in the Ciuidl-Mc, \lemorandurr. to Address and
Nliti me Secondary and CUnlulatiyr hupecu to Aquatic :en Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and
Water Qualm (\'C\ RC 200?f. A mrc in-depth analyst, ofcumUlatiye and secondary impacts
10 area resources is needed.
We indicated in our scoping comments thtu :Ile purpose and reed for the project \\ould need to
justilN' the expected impacts. The purpose is to inlpro\ c access to 1-485 ;tom 11 eddingion Road
and the surroundinu camnlunitics it, •1?ciji:m?!lOll. Matthc\c.i. arld Charlotte Cali'. limits. The
document uses trafity Iorecas' '•0111`11. nrC\'IOU31`: determined for the Base )•ear 3003 and
lio:izon )'ear 2025 and indicated updated forecasts %%ill be provided in the I indin(' Of No
Si!?nificant Impacts document.
I h e analysis sho\vs similar Leech Ot .%?er\ ice (LOS) ben\een the J a n and \o-BUIId scenarios:
however. where there are differences. the LOS is .%orse it the p;nlect is built. I he proposed
interchange \\ill add appntxiinaicl:. 1.0f10 vchicics to 1--1 S? in both ireciior,s during the AN/1 and
PM peak ilour<, but till -educe the \olun;e of traffic usinu :he adjacent inierchanves (NC 16
!Providence Road) and John Street ;SR 1001;!. hhe project \\"III increase the desiin" for most
ramps by approximately 2.0 to I L-, passenger cars per mile per lane, but the densit}" on the
ramps at the \C 16 interchange kill decrease onh' by approximately two passencer cars per mile
per lane in the \cur 2-025. We question whether the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
impacts.
The document also indicated that 1-43-5 %%ill operate at an unacceptable level of service by the
design year 202?; with or with out the project. In order for all freeway segments, ramps, and
weave sections to operate at LOS D or better in the design \car. 1-485 will need to he widened to
night lanes and a ramp on the NC 16 interchan r would need to be widened.
We reiterate that \CDOT and local authorities should commit to measures that \vill reduce the
cumulative and secondary impacts expected trom this project in order to protect stream and
water quality. wildlife habitat. and hst d species, including the Endangered Carolina hcelsplitter.
I hank you for the opporttu:ity to re\ i o. Anil cominiei-. on this project. If you trace an% questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 1'704 i 951-'. 0) 0.
Literature Cited
Booth. D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural draina e sNstcm-impacts. solutions. and
prognoses. North\\"est Fnt\"Ironnb;ntal Joarn 1. 7(1);93-i 18.
\C\\ RC (North Carolina Wildlife Resouuces Conmlissionl. 2001 Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate Sccnndar•, and Cuniula:i%- Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial
Wildlife Resources and \\ ater Quality. \CWRC. Ralciuh. Available'
Ilttp:':\\Nc\\.nCUildlite.or?p,) \\ iidii1eSpecirsC.nrp_7i3 impacts.p: Pehruar
2003).
Schucler, Tom. 1994. The Importance „I Imperious)/css. Watcrshed l'roti•cuor, Techniques.
1:3 (pp104-I Ili.
Taylor. 8.1.. 1993. The imluence? of \?ciiand and w;t.cnccd nionnhological characteristics and
relationships to \cetland \_ e tit?n ci'nununities. \lasters thesis. Dept. of Civil
Eneincerin_. [:niversit\ of Seattle. R.\.
cc: -Marella Buncick. USF%VS
Poll" I.espinassc. \CD\\"Q
Christopher \lditschcr. USI=PA
Angic Rodgers. \('\1-IP

;La7[[y^
lC-
. L. li R I ?. ::YBn
J _
' r.a,i.m ., •.:!ICS '}IIJiiN
August 1. 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From Polly Lespinasse. Division of'w'Jater Quality. Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment Related to the Proposed Interstate Access
Addition to 1485 at Weddington Road (SR 3468), Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-117-1(54), State Project No. 8.U670124, WBS Element
34331.1.7, TIP Project R-0211 EC, DENR Project No. 08-0020, Due Date 08113/2007
This office has reviewed the above referenced document dated May 2007. The Division of Water Quality
IDV'1Q) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 4D1 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact
Waters of the U.S.. including wetlands. It :s cur understanding that the orolect as presented will result in
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. streams. a.nd otner surface waters The DWQ offers the following comments
based on review of the aforementioned document
General Comments:
The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapoing. If mitigation. is necessary as required by 15A
N C A C 21-1.0506(h). it is preferable tc present a conceptual (if not fir.ailzed) mitigat!cn plan with the
environmental documentation App-coriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification
Environmental assessment alterr.a:!.es snali consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams
and wetlands from storm water rune" '^ese alternatives shall Ir.ciude road designs that allow for
treatment of the storm water runo•" th•o_gn best management practices as detailed in the most recent
version of NCDWQ Stormwater Be.-,: V,?rragem.ent Practices, such as grassed swales. buffer areas.
preformed scour holes. retention bas -.s etc.
1 Ater the selection of the preferred al:er.native and prior to an issuance of the 4131 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands land streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with
the Environmental Management Commission s Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h)). mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 1 acre to weCa.nds Ir the event that mitigation is recuired, the mitigation plan
should be designed to replace approcr:ate last functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program may be available for use as >.^:et!and mitigation
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Comm!ssior.'s Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)).
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In
the event that mitigation is required. the mitigation plan shat: be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosyste r Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
- ? ittunt!!q
J!I
.. ?.__...9JCdnil=...^..J:R 1••.13"] - :Ef_... ?. _... __ _ -_:._ ^5':Ci_ 4:15
DENR Project No. 08-0020
Page Two
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Vdater Quality Certif-cation Aopiicaucn. should continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from m is project. NCDOT
shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur fc the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The
type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of
secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
9. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to. bridging. fill. excavation and
clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams. and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact
calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need
to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
9. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts
shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in
areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted. a bridge may prove preferable. When
applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek. 4c the maximum extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
Borrowiwaste areas shall avoid we:la^cs :p t!,e maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate
compensatory mitigation.
12 The 401 Water Quality Certif cahor. apc canon will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More spe_ ` _a•!y stormwater shall nct be permitted to discharge directly into
streams or surface waters.
3 Based on the information presented ne document. the magnitude cf impacts to wetlands and streams
may require an Nationwide (NW) Pe,mit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401
Water Quality Certification. Please ce advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
protection of water quality to ensure tt'at water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses
are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and
written concurrence from the NCDYVQ Please be aware that any approval w M be contingent on
appropriate avoidance and m;nfmiza:,Q-; of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical,
the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan. and the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation plans where appropriate
14. Bridge supports (bents' shall net be placed jr. the stream when possible.
5. `Alhenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing o' the streambanks and do not require stream channei realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and vildl:fe passage beneath
the structure. do riot block fish passage arc do not block navigation by canoeists and toaters.
10". Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream S'ormwater s:n.aii be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed s•wales, pre formed scour holes.
vegetated buffers. etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ
Sro.mcrater Bps! .Man;ge.meor Praco; es
DENR Project No. 08-0020
Page Three
17. If concrete is used during construction. a or, •,vork area sna;l be maintained 'o prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream vvater. Viater that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not
be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish
kills
13 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed. the site shall be graded to its oreconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded cr mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate
native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but
net grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws. mowers. bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment
and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil
disturbance.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters. streams. and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches. to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium
of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures.
The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in
writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limitrne features
encountered during construction. please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how tc proceed and to
determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
20. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as
closely as possible including pipes or barres at fiood plain elevation and!or sills where appropriate.
Widening the stream channel shall oe avoided. Stream channel w!denrna at the isle; or outlet end of
structures typimly decreases water velocity causing sediment deposdion that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21 If foundation test borings are necessary: it shall be noted ie the document. Gectechnlcai work is
approved under General 404. Certification Number 3494'Naticnw de Permit No 6 for Survey Activities
22 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect Water resources must be imolemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sedimen' and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version cf NCS1200250.
23. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducteC in a ary work area Approved BMP measures
from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as
sandbags. rock berms. cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in
flowing water.
24 While the use of National Welland Inventory (NV`dl) maps. NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
25. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather tear. in stream channels in orcer to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing ot^er poliutar.ts into streams. This equipment
should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other tox!c materials.
26. Rsprap shall not be placed in the act,ve thalv:ec channel or pia-=_d i. the s rear'CGd in a manner that
preciudes aquatic life passage. Biceng,neernc boulders or structures shall be pro;.erlp designed. sized
and installed
DENR Project No. 08-0020
Page Four
27. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs! shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the ccnstruction limits of the project by the end of the
growing season follow;ng completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your'project. Shall you have any questions or
require any additional information. please contact Poily Lesp;nasse at [phone].
cc Steve Lund. US Army Corps of Engineers. Asheville Field Office
Ron Lucas. Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Office
File Copy
NORTH CAROI:INA"STATE"CLEARINGHOUSE"`
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 08-E-4220-0020
DATE RECEIVED: 07/18/2007
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/13/2007
REVIEW CLOSED: 08/18/2007
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD REGION F ll
CENTRALINA COG
??
P.O. BOX 35008
CHARLOTTE NC ??^ 9UG
00>
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION r "?yt sc.
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP 'r
V
CENTRALINA COG -
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS -_i
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT:.N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Ac:
ERD: Environmental Assessment
F02
DESC: Proposal to construct an interc:':ange t--,=i. at [?eddington Road to improve
Weddington Road from the McKee Road :ntersec:ion to the Winterbrook subdivision in
Mecklenburg County. TIP No. R-v2 ll EC
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 07-E-4220-0'9,
The attached project has been subm:_ceo ,D t..= ... _. S ace Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please re:•:e'- and response by the above
S. r.d- ad date to 1301 Mail Serv_c=
If additional review Lime is need :__e =ccta _h_s office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLe.0W::j3 :S SUDh177-E':
O COMMENT
F] COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: r` // '!n'-= ?!
DATE:!
704 341 4710 tme 1 03 0923 p m 08-14-2007
'?.- .xaavaacxM,nl?.a?
Centralina
Council of Governments
TO: Charlotte City Manager
Matthews Town Manager
Weddington Town Manager
Mecklenburg County Manager
Union County Manager
Pam Young, Administrative Assistant
Heather Sorensen, LUESA
NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of time for review,
contact Cynthia Winfield immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and return to this
office by August 9, 2007
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments regarding this .
proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 08-0020
Commemer'sName Aer 5o(ense.-) Tide !-nviir,nnt.&-Jal ri Ns+
Representing_ o r wtQa tYtnn ?? a Wc-kA1 uaLlrg Prba,G/n
(Jurisdiction)
Address "?M ) 1 ru^,-? S-6y `
? AL+o UL a?a?a ?qpq Phone - `73 ?' )9109
Date $'t'o'Q7
213
Midtown Plaza Building -1300 Barter Street, Suite 450
PO Box 35008, Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.centralina.org
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 08-E-9220-0020; _ 02
DATE RECEIVED: 07/18/2007
AGENCY RESPONSFlliM.J?++,?..A ^
REVIEW CLOSED: 08/18/2007 ..'.p-A
HS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NO
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
CENTRALINA COG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
,., ,yJl1 j?(St
AUG 2007 =. s,
N
J1
YVX
5-,OS?IIIo?
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act_
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Prooosal to construct an interchange for I-985 at Wedd;ngton Road to improve
Weddington Road from the McKee Road intersection to the Winterbrook subdivision in
Mecklenburg County. TIP No. R-0211EC
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 07-E-4220-0192
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
? COMMENTS ATTACHED
j? n /? C
SIGNED BY: ip?yl Q.Q y6X,?+v +XX "" ( LU'
T rvl
DATE:
?,E1vF
,:, h 1001
JUL 2 4 2007

.
...
_
..: cow: ml -:J;t t< n cnr:'.;a,e I . .

;.`.. __.. .._ _ ..:.:'.:n ht: r: .CAP Jt e: C::_ = .- An. tL :...... .........
in-1: nz

..: _. ?' . Tf; e. ...:.
...... l

J.:Y

r.1. f': ':

._.-.___._._-_....._._..._.._.. __?..------ ...__. _--

L :s
v57- ?G Mi? Cer..Mi.iw..Ld ?•1s am w-r?? ?\.v ?+g Y-v ?rc;'1+'•w ?l k Josop
?vlva+te? F,xeA.ly, s?ZS a/3of z} ? .
l _
REGIONAL OFFICES
l i!lC$t1U[li Cc _'8faa:^_ i{lz SC ^2r:T1:[ l I':oC.-' ..` C ]:{. i•Cj ?i: to a:L, Rz!%!ior;d QIi:: ?l :T'ia-k-i1 b2!o"%'.
4she%'ilie Retiional Office i/loorexiMe Re+_iunal Orrice \1'ilmin_t..n Hesional Office
l/ l1i..... i ( Ja[it A'+-IU.:_.
w.:,-n:moa. NC 28--S \foer_s'. i!Ic. \C'_Sl NC _S.406
2?6-41 ;00
Fa%etto Me Re;,ional Office Ralei,-h Rcei nal Office - \\'insmn-salon Ke Tonal Office
, .
Ni,,-:I+CJ ,l ti,rcci, Suit,: \.!. ,.11;c. I) - Sllll ..:'.ill ?I!l'il
\(' a Will>I n i)-
1 C.. ,
a ca,
\\a<hin',Inn Rc;;ional Office
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 23, 2007
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RECE(,V L
DMs"ion of Highways
AUG 2 8 1007
Prec0sh ictbn
P
E ,Devebptnent and
ntalAnalysis Branch
Subject: Review of the Environmental Assessment for a New Interchange at SR 3468
(Weddington Road) and I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, TIP Project No. R-0211 EC, State Project No. 8.U670124, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-117-1(54)
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have reviewed
.. the environmental assessment (EA)'provided for the subject project. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
I. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
;i The NCDOT proposes to construct an interchange for I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) at SR 3468
(Weddington Road). The alternative recommended in the EA is to build a half-clover
interchange and widen Weddington Road to a five-lane cnrh-and-gutter roariway with left turn
lanes at ramp and loop intersections. The bridge over 1-485 will be widened to the east, and a
sidewalk will be included on the west side.
Impacts to Listed Species
In our December 2006 comments on this project, we stated our concerns that the project may
have adverse effects on the headwaters of Sixmile Creek. Sixmile Creek is occupied by the
federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel (Lasmigona decorata) downstream of the
project. In our review of the EA, we noted that the water resources described as being directly
impacted by the project area are tributaries to Fourmile Creek. We were unable to find a map
displaying the watershed boundaries of Sixmile and Fourmile Creek or a summary impact table
in the document. Therefore, we remain concerned that this project could directly impact the
headwaters of Sixmile Creek. In addition, there are multiple references to a Growth Impact
Study Area (GISA), but there is no map or physical description of the study area boundaries.
Table 28 lists only South Fork Crooked Creek in the GISA. South Fork Crooked Creek is east of
the Twelvemile Creek watershed and east of US 74, several miles from the project area.
However, Fourmile Creek is directly impacted by the project, and Sixmile and West Fork
Twelvemile Creeks are nearby, to the south. At a minimum, these streams should have been
considered in an analysis of growth impacts for this project.
According to the EA, it is likely that the project will increase the rate and influence the location
of development in the area. The potential for induced residential growth is high on the east side
of Weddington and McKee Roads. Although the EA discusses the potential for induced growth,
there is no analysis of the effects of that growth on the resources in the area. Additionally, there
is no discussion about measures to offset any impacts, such as zoning, ordinances, access control,
or comprehensive planning, including protective conservation measures. We believe that a more
thorough analysis of indirect and cumulative effects needs to be conducted to determine the
extent and magnitude of impacts from this project.
General Comments
The following statements appear on pages 35 and 42 of the EA, respectively: "This project is
consistent with the Local Land Use plans," and "The Matthews Land Use Plan states that the
Matthews Town Board objects to the Weddington Road interchange." The statement on page 42
is under the heading entitled "Conflict with local plan." There is no discussion about why the
local community objects to the interchange or how it impacts their land-use and zoning plans.
In Section C--Land Use and Planning--there are references to Figures•3 and 4. Neither of these
figures was included in our copy of the EA. In particular, statements made in reference to
Figure 3 would be much clearer if the figure were available.
Given the analysis of traffic and congestion improvement, we question the basic need for the
project. The analysis in the EA demonstrates very similar Levels of Service (LOS) between the
"build" and "no-build" scenarios; and, strikingly, where a difference is demonstrated, the LOS
will be worse if the project is built. The document also indicates that, with or without the
project, I-485 will operate at an unacceptable LOS by the design year 2025. In order for all
freeway segments, ramps, and weave sections to operate at LOS D or better in the design year,
I-485 will need to be widened to eight lanes, and a ramp on the NC 16 interchange would need to
be widened. There is no discussion regarding planning for any of these future improvements,
and we were not entirely clear about whether the proposed interchange itself would need to be
upgraded if these future improvements are deemed necessary.
We are still concerned about potential impacts associated with the project to the important
headwater area of Sixmile Creek, the Carolina heelsplitter, and all other streams that drain the
project area and vicinity. The project vicinity has experienced tremendous growth, and a new
interchange is likely to induce further growth. We reiterate our recommendation that the
NCDOT proactively address induced growth and its related impacts by implementing techniques
such as access control and working with the local governments to help develop and adopt
protective zoning and comprehensive planning. Comprehensive planning for this area should
include a conservation strategy for the Carolina heelsplitter to help offset impacts to the
long-term survival and recovery of the species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments at this early stage of project planning. If
you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-07-080.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Chris Militscher, c/o Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse, 310 New Bem Avenue, Room 206,
Raleigh, NC 27601
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY ADDENDUM
AND TRAFFIC NOISE TABLES
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Interstate Access Addition to I-485
at SR 3468 (Weddington Road)
Mecklenburg County
WBS Element No. 34331.1.7
TIP Project No. R-021 I EC
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted By:
Human Environment Unit
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group
March 14, 2008
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Interstate Access Addition to.I-485
at SR 3468 (Weddington Road)
Mecklenburg County
WBS Element No. 34331.1.7
TIP Project No. R-021 I EC
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted By:
Human Environment Unit
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group
Greg y A. mith, PE
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor
?4 7
Ric Cox
Traffic Noise Engineer
Executive Summary
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes adding access to I-485 from SR 3468
(Weddington Road) in Mecklenburg County. This project involves constructing on and off
ramps to I-485 and the widening of SR 3468 (Weddington Road). Currently, there is no access
to I-485 to or from SR 3468 (Weddington Road). SR 3468 (Weddington Road) is a two-lane
facility and is proposed to be widened to a five-lane facility from SR 3440 (McKee Road) to just
north Winterbrooke Drive.
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects, especially in
areas where there are no previous traffic noise sources. A Traffic Noise Analysis was performed
utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict future noise levels and
impacted receptors along the proposed alignments.
Based on this analysis, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur with the addition of the on
or off ramps to I-485. One (1) receiver will be acquired as right-of-way. The widening of SR
3468 (Weddington Road) creates two predicted traffic noise impacts along the proposed project.
Noise mitigation was considered for all traffic noise impacts identified in this analysis. Based on
this analysis and in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, traffic noise
abatement measures are not considered feasible or reasonable for this project. Consequently, no
noise abatement is recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
Please note that this noise analysis utilized only Preliminary Plans. The number of traffic noise
impacts for the Build Alternative may change if the Final Plan alignment varies from that found
on the Preliminary Plans.
This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772.
Unless a major project change develops, such as that noted in the previous paragraph, no
additional noise reports will be necessary for this project.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Characteristics of Noise
3.0 Noise Abatement Criteria
4.0 Ambient Noise Levels
5.0 Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
6.0 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
7.0 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
7.1 Highway Alignment Selection
7.2 Traffic System Management Measures
7.3 Noise Barriers
7.4 Other Mitigation Measures Considered
8.0 Do Nothing Alternative
9.0 Construction Noise
10.0 Summary
Page l
1
1
3
4
5
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
List of Tables
Table 1 Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily Page 2
Table 2 Noise Abatement Criteria 3
Table 3 Ambient Noise Levels (Leq) 4
Table 4 Approximate # of Impacted Receptors 6
Table 5 Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts 7
Table 6 Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contours 8
List of Figures
Figure I Project Area Map and Ambient Measurement Sites Page I 1
Appendix
Traffic Noise Exposures Build Alternative Al
No-Build Alternative A2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes adding access from 1-485 at SR 3468
(Weddington Road) in Mecklenburg County. This project involves constructing on and off
ramps to I-485 and widening SR 3468 (Weddington Road). Currently, there is no access to I-485
to or from SR 3468 (Weddington Road). SR 3468 (Weddington Road) is a two-lane facility and
is proposed to be widened to a five-lane facility from SR 3440 (McKee Road) tojust north of
Winterbrooke Drive.
2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including
airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or
traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of sound
pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements because
it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table 1, which indicates that most
individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they
go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound
depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected; individuals
tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many
of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway
traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have
developed rapidly over the past few years.
3.0 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether highway
TABLE 1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY 1
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 ----------------------------- ----------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 ------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 ----------------------------- -----------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 km/h at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 km/h at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --------------------------------------- -----------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 ------------------------------ --------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 ----------------------------------------- -----------
---------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON' S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 ------------------------- -----------'-------- -
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia America, "Industrial Noise
and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Hartord (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and
published in the Chicago Tribune in an ilus(rated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). A summary of the
noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 2. The Leq, or equivalent
sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic
noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
TABLE 2
2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA I
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Cate o
Leq(h)
Description of Activity Category

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an
(Exterior) important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the
area is to continue to serve its intended purpose
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks

(Exterior) ,
residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches

(Interior) ,
libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums
I ute zi 1-ode of Pederal Regulations (CFR) Par(772, U.S. Department of "Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREAS177 2
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing
in Leq(h) Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels
<= 50 >= 15
51 >= 14
52 >= 13
53 >= 12
54 >= I I
>= 55 >= 10
North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy (09/02/04).
4.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient
(existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information
was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from
3
the edges of pavement on 1-485 and SR 3468 (Weddington Road), were 75 dBA and 6l dBA,
respectively. Background noise levels of 49 dBA (along Oxborough Drive) and 65 dBA (along
Wilrose Place) were determined for the access addition part of this project, to be used in areas
where traffic noise is not the predominant source. The ambient measurement locations are
shown in Figure 1 and described in Table 3.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise
prediction model to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than l dBA difference from the
measured noise levels for the location where noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the
computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can
be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
TABLE 3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq) t

SITE
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
I SR 3468 (Weddington Rd.) @ Skiskey YMCA Grassy 61

2 1-485 East of SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains Rd.) Grassy 75
___
_

BGI F
Oxborough Drive -
Paved
49

B
65
t
Ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement
of the nearest lane of traffic.
5.0
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that describe different
cars driving at different speeds through continually changing highway configurations and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The procedure used to predict
future noise levels in this study was the FHWA-produced Traffic Noise Model software
(TNM 2.5).
The TNM traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated,
etc.), noise receptor location, receptor height above the roadway, and, if applicable, barrier type,
barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it must be noted that only preliminary alignment information was available for use
in this noise analysis. The project proposes adding access from I-485 to SR 3468 (Weddingrton
Road) and the widening of SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR 3440 (McKee Road) to just
north of Winterbrooke Drive in Mecklenburg County. Peak hour design and level-of-service
(LOS) C volumes were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used
with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will
be no greater than those indicated in this report. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included in setting up the model. All roadway sections and proposed intersections
were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the 2030 Design Year being analyzed. The Leq traffic noise exposures
associated for this project are listed in the Appendix. Information included in these tables consist
of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
6.0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE CONTOURS
A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise
impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
(a) Approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table 2 value), or
(b) Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of
Table 2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category.
The number of receptors in each activity category, for each section, that are predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise are shown in Table 4. These receptors are noted in terms of
those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Based on this analysis and
under Title 23 CFR Part 772, three residences are predicted to be impacted due to highway
traffic noise in the project area.
TABLE 4
APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED RECEPTORS
ACCORDING TO TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITY CATEGORY
A B C D E
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR 3440

(McKee Road) to North of W interbrooke Dr. 0 3 0 0 0
1-485 from West of SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains

Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington Road) 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 3 0 0 0

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITY CATEGORY
A B C D E
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR 3440 0 1

(McKee Road) to North of Winterbrooke Dr. 0 0 0
I-485 from West of SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains 0 0 0 0

Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington Road) 0
TOTAL 0 1 0 0 0
Note: Lone impact on No Build Alternative is due to noise from 1-485
Table 5 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway
section. There are two substantial noise level impacts anticipated due to this project.
The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +13 dBA. The amount of
substantial noise level impacts for each roadway section can be found in Table 5. When real-life
noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change
is more readily noticeable.
In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, Federal and State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development
where building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the
"Date of Public Knowledge". The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document. For
development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible
to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
With the proper information on future traffic noise contours and predicted noise levels, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
TABLE 5
PREDICTED SUBSTANTIAL NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS
EXTERIOR NOISE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE LEVEL INCREASE NOISE LEVEL DUE TO
<9 10-14 > 15 INCREASE I BOTH
dBA dBA dBA CRITERIA -
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR
3440 (MeKee Road) to North of 6 10 0 2 2
Winterbrooke Dr.
1-485 from West of SR 3448 (Pleasant
Plains Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington 10 0 0 0 0
Road
TOTALS 16 10 0 2 2

EXTERIOR NOISE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE LEVEL INCREASE 'NOISE LEVEL DUE TO
<9 10-14 > 15 INCREASE t BOTH 2
dBA dBA dBA CRITERIA
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR
3440 (McKee Road) to North of 15 2 0 0 0
Winterbrooke Dr.
I-485 from West of SR 3448 (Pleasant
Plains Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington 9 1 0 0 0
Road)
TOTALS 24 3 0 0 0
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level
contours for SR 3468 (Weddington Road) widening and for I-485, measured from the center of
the proposed roadways, are less than fifty-five feet (<55') and one hundred-seventy-nine feet
(179'), respectively. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contours for SR 3648
(Weddington Road) widening and for I-485, measured from the center of the proposed roadways
are one hundred and one feet (101') and two hundred-sixty-six feet (260'), respectively. Contour
information and predicted future noise levels are shown by roadway sections in Table 6. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
7.0 TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for
noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There are three predicted
impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The following discussion
addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project.
TABLE 6
PREDICTED Leq NOISE LEVELS
and NOISE CONTOURS
MAXIMUM PREDICTED MAXIMUM
BUILD ALTERNATIVE Leq NOISE LEVELS (dBA)l CONTOUR'
DISTANCES'
50 ft loo ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR 3440

(McKee Road) to North of Winterbrooke Dr. 69 65 59 <55 101
1-485 from west of SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains

Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington Road) 77 74 67 179 266

MAXIMUM PREDICTED MAXIMUM
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Leq NOISE LEVELS (dBA)' CONTOUR'
DISTANCES'
50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) from SR 3440

(McKee Road) to North of Winterbrooke Dr. 66 60 55 <37 54
1-485 from west of SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains

Road) to SR 3468 (Weddington Road) 77 74 67 179 266
7.1 Highway Alignment Selection
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed
improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment
selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement on this
project.
7.2 Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity
and level-of-service of the proposed facility.
8
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a
noise level reduction of approximately I to 2 dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise
reduction of up to 3 dBA, and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity,
it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management
measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with
the project's objective of providing a high-speed, limited-access facility.
7.3 Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a measurable
degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable
measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures
may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise
reduction, it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a
small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to
restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a
barrier's length would normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located fifty feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier four
hundred feet long. An access opening of forty feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Consequently, this type of control of access
effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.
Additionally, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular
highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for
traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case.
7.4 Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not
considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted
receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost of $35,000 per benefited
receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not
recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the
substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to provide effective vegetative barriers. FHWA
research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet (100') wide
to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial
amounts of additional right-of-way are required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and to
plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost of $35,000 allowed per
benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit
institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
8.0 DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative was also considered. If
the proposed widening does not occur, one receptor is anticipated to approach or exceed the
FHWA NAC. This receptor could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels of
approximately 2 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of
2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
10.0 SUMMARY
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects especially in
areas where there are no previous traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts identified in this
analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise
abatement is not recommended. and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless a major
project change develops, no additional noise reports are necessary for this project.
10
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of lighways Ccunry: Meddenburg
"eet Development d Environmental Analysis Brandt
Traffic NoisefAir Quality Group Div: 10 TI? iqi-0211EC
Figure 1
?- OYBS Element 4
k 1485 Access Addition at and the Widening of 34331.1.1
_ h SR 3408 (Weddington Road)
? '?° Date: 02! 1 3108
I
a
&a
H 9
? C
R?
9 8
a
S?
R
4
m ,e
ryR ?
a
?. 9
G
4 ?
P !p
W ~
N I J J
? tJ !t J IJ I J N r r
J U A W N . _ O b W J P U A W N r 0 ?O W J O u A W tJ
.-
? ? ? ;F P' ;F ;p w F w ;F F R ;F ? m m to
a e e e e a a e e e e a a ;
e V ; 5 5 ? O
R R . . . . .
. . . . e .e .e e .e . W x
v o R
v R
v R
a R
n R R Ft R M R R R R R R R fk R R R R R R R R R

R
R
R
9
R
ta v
A
R n
R v
A
g°O n
9 e
R v
9 v
A v
fd v
9 n
9 n
R v
9 n
9
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
y
?
.. P m ?
5

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n n n n n n n ? 9?

m
_ _W o Q

? ? t
r
( y
?' yJ
? Pm

8

?
r r P S'

'<'
U p
A '?
IJ 'G
O ?p
J L4
U OG
U pp
?! .O b ?
+l
l .?
! r IJ N tJ IJ IJ 1/? ? r V

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 CO
0 '
p
O +
D P
U +
U pp
O S
O O
U W
O IJ
D A
U A
0 ....
0 U
0 IJ
0
0 J
0 Gp
0
O c
G
0
a+ 6
0
x 0
? 0
? 0
so 0
9d 0
v 0
fo 0
a? 0 ?
}c '
6 O
?c O
w O
X+ O
9u C
r O
?n 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
?u 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
rQ ?'

R
U
0.
? Q
P ' ?Q
p
U

O
W
r R
I
U,
9 ? z

s
k m

tl
? ? ? ? m m a $ $ = ? .PO tvi n °- ? $ a d Pm u ? Pw u a a .PO ? fn

+ + + . + + + , + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R
'
u u u u u U O. p m o W O X 0 0 ' 0 0 0 N ?" " O '? '? O y I
?
f
y
m
r
m
U
Y
R
O-
?.1 T
ry
F
_? m C
?tA tin
n a ?
O
O
W
6
pb
B

D
N
zs
p O
„ Q
4
?R
s Q
ga
W °
ro ti
5 g
4
G.
G
?. 9
A
a;
Y
J G J J IJ IJ r r r ? ? M
f . W N gy
- O O JJ P u % w u r O O Oo J N > w r 1nI
y
F y
I6 ? y
F y
F .
p
Ilf y
Ti y
IG y
16 ^ 16 ? y
I6 .y
Ilf y
F ? y
F y
1ri y
F y
R ? r
?
g m VJ
R
v R
o R R
a R
v Ft
o R R Ft R
?i' R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R fd w A

s
s
a
s
s
s a
s o
s a
s a
a
g a
s v
s o
s 0
s 0
s o
s a
s o
s a
s v
s
W
W
W
W
It
it
W
?
?
m
E

E ?
m
m m m m m m m m m ? m m m m m m m m m m n n n n n n n o ?

o
z
z
?
3
E
? ?
n

N
O ..pp
F
O
?
O
O
C
?
O
N
O
N
G pppp
J
O a

O o
Gp
O

A
J
O
J
N r
P
N
?1
N
$ rJ
O -
Vi ro
O ?J
IOA rJ
N O N
O
O
.O
p r
0 4
PP
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn Y
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A r A r r r r A r
r r r
' W
ry
N
Y
O_ W
V r d
^i
e
9 ? x
O m t?r/j,

VI
+I 1A
J l II
J N
J N
pp N
pp N
?[ N
? N
.p P
IJ P
Y p
O U
P P
Y N
J N
W N
N N
L lA
L p J . p N P P P

W N
!i
CO
?
I.J
P 2
3
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + p
N N N N N N P P ^r o y 0 N N P N N N N rJ o IJ N N N N N M
w
m
a
U
n
W
a
C
O° ?? O
cn
5 n m
o m
b
71
m ?
P
O
0
6
ro
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Interstate Access Addition to I-485
at SR 3468 (Weddington Road)
Mecklenburg County
WBS Element No. 34331.1.7
TIP Project No. R-021 IEC
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted By:
Human Environment Unit
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group
March 14, 2008
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Interstate Access Addition to I-485
at SR 3468 (Weddington Road)
Mecklenburg County
WBS Element No. 34331.1.7
TIP Project No. R-0211 EC
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted By:
Human Environment Unit
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group
Gr ory . Smith, PE
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor
u. ?L
Bobby Dunn
Air Quality Engineer
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction Page 1
2.0 Air Quality Analysis 1
3.0 Attainment Status 1
4.0 Carbon Monoxide 1
5.0 Ozone & Nitrogen Dioxide 2
6.0 Particulate Matter & Sulfur 2
7.0 Lead 2
8.0 Mobile Source Air Toxics 3
9.0 Burning of Debris Summary 9
10.0 Summary 9
List of Figures
Figurel Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source 4
Air Toxics Emissions (MSAT), 2000-2020
Figure 2 Project Location Map with 12
Location of CO Microscale Analysis
Appendix
Table Al Year 2010 Line Source' Dispersion Model Al
Table A2 Year 2015 Line Source Dispersion Model A3
Table A3 Year 2030 Line Source Dispersion Model A5
1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes adding access from I-485 at
SR 3468 (Weddington Road) in Mecklenburg County. This project involves constructing
on and off ramps to 1-485 and widening SR 3468 (Weddington Road). Currently, there is
no access to I-485 to or from SR 3468 (Weddington Road). SR 3468 (Weddington Road)
is a two-lane facility and is proposed to be widened to a five-lane facility from SR 3440
(McKee Road) to just north of Winterbrooke Drive.
2.0 Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the
ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).
3.0 Attainment Status
The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Metrolina
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Charlotte nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
designated these areas as moderate nonattainment area for CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for CO on
September 18, 1995. This area was designated moderate nonattainment for O3 under the
eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires
that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air
quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Mecklenburg County. The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan
Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2007-2013
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The
USDOT made a conformity determination on both the LRTP and the TIP on June 29,
2007. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule
found in 40 CFR Parts 51and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
4.0 Carbon Monoxide
Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to
determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration
components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as
the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances
within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local
vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. CAL3QHC - A Modeling
Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was
used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted
of a level roadway under normal conditions-with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle
emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are
based on the annual average daily traffic (AADT) projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the years 2010, 2015 and 2030 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILE6 mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural Resources' Air Quality Section indicated that an ambient CO concentration of
1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the
intersection of Weddington Road and McKee Road. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are 4.30, 4.20 and 4.60
ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; maximum permitted for
8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the
results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it
can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables A 1
through A3 in the Appendix for input and output data.
5.0 Ozone & Nitrogen Dioxide
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone (O}) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,).
Automotive emissions of HC and NOz are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars.
However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset
by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur ten to twenty
kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole
are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix in the atmosphere, and, in the presence of
sunlight, this mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical
oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los
Angeles, California.
6.0 Particulate !Matter & Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS.
7.0 Lead
Automobiles without catalytic converters can bum regular gasoline. The burning of
regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead,
which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
Catalytic converters bum unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in
the lead content of leaded gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974
was approximately 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.003 gram per liter. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or
transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995.
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause
the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
8.0 Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from
human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g.,
airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road
equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the
fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the
incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics
also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229
(March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean
Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile
source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national
low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and
gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle
standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and
2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will
reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde
by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87
percent, as shown in Figure 1.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel
standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another
rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust
the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs.
FIGURE 1
U.S. ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
vs.
MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSAT) EMISSIONS, 2000-2020
VMT
(trillions/year)
urwo6JG
F^ mane p2
Emissions
(tons/year)
Y UYEAm
I bA e6JE ro
?COED
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using
MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%.
Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics
2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM
+ DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic
carbon and S04 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at
10.0 microns.
4
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Unavailable Information for Project Specific INISAT Impact Analysis
This FONSI includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this
project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-
specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this
FONSI. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental and
health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key
elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate
ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in
order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final
determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is
encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more
complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
• Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are
not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of
highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional
level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based
model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on
average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have
the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at
a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can
only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be
present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions
effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not
sensitive to average trip speed. although the other MSAT emission rates do
change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2
for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the
conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to
quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT
emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and
performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is
not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller
projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The
EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and
validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic
concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum
concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic
area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at
specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess
potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in
applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This
work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and
communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public.
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced
with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-
specific MSAT background concentrations.
• Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and
concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current
techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching
meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure
assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual
concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year
that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location.
These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in
travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-
year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing
estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose
extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general
population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health
impacts between alternatives. is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh
this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative
analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the
Impacts of MSATs: Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For
different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are
statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies
(frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals
demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the
agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate
modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended
for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the
NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national
or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human
health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the
environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following
toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database
Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim
from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the
potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the
existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential
for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in
humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of
nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female
hamsters after inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the
combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary
noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary
function and could produce symptoms, such as co) is ugh, phlegm, and chronic
bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to
roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA,
FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway
MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants,
and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes --particularly respiratory problems. Much of this research is not specific to
MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The
FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not
provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and
enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to
this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably
Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of
Impacts Based Upon Theoretical Approaches or Research Methods Generally
Accepted in the Scientific Community: Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a
quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health
cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably
predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of
MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or
exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough
accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current
emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for
smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information
is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would
have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment."
This document provides a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the
various alternatives and acknowledges that some of the project alternatives may result in
increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations
and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health
effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and
uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates
of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods
do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is
possible to qualitatively assess the levels of.future MSAT emissions under the project.
Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs,
it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT
emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented
below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FH WA entitled A Methodology
for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project
Alternatives, found at:
www. thwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxie/msatcompare/msatemissions. htm.
For each alternative in this FONS1, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional
to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are
the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives will
likely be slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional
capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from
elsewhere in the transportation network. The increased VMT would lead to higher
MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a
corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions
increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds;
according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs
except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-11 (2000); Highway
Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air
quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles,
Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein
these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases
cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be
lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs
that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and
2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix
and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of
the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that
MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the
effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, and businesses; therefore, under
each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT
could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The
localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the
new alignment segments and along the sides of existing roadways where symmetrical
widening occurs. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these
potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified
due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened
and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the
Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be
offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with
lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic
shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations,
coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all
cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
9.0 Burning of Debris
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any buming done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
10.0 Summary
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a.variety of
pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle
emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions
in congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to
the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant
emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has
increased rapidly.
The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which complies with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or
creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this nonattainment area
to
Y H Y F+
m N N Y 0 J O1 W N 1
)f Y H Y Y H Y Y
J OI VI d W N
O
m J
N d W N

m
z m
m
CJ
O .
.
.
.
$££ I
m
H C m I N
p
m
m m
m m m m
l N m m m m m zm m zm m l
Q1 61 m m m X II II M
C Z
"3
`
3 H H A H O Z tl
S H
q
0
S H b
tl
S H ?
tl
O
C y
A y t
ll
'
0
f
*
1
[+
1
'
t
p S
-7 'O tl b 3 0
c C N i [' 1
?
pp
H C ro y C
fib H C ?
w C n i N yy
°
,
M o H H
H
?
H w I p ?J ?1 001 n
W i n m
3
? O
^
3 b
b I
y y
0
y C
n RI
I m 1
?
? m
y 3? p n
y C S
Y
S
b r
il
H i L
?J to H rn I C
H
r ° n
H z
z n o
x i? H
z

`
p 0 °
q S
,
? z
3 F
n
1
1
l
Y H Y H H H Y Y H; r n l
?
] K I
N N N m
y
m x
o I l o l l H
W W O W W O Y F+ N H Y Y Y .I ??
I r o
N N N N N N I
Z 1
0 O m
O N N d N
N 1 m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 m L) r 0 .
.
N 1 0
n x m .
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i N° W
a
r n
H
3
z m
-y }1 H r ! x -m n
J F+
Ip m 0 O m O 1 m 3 O 0
H n
a
N W N J J Ol J 01 I n m M F+ Y Y Y H N W.
0 N N O I ?
N N N N N N d A d O A a O I
0
?
?ff
0 0 0 0 o m o m o o m m o m o 0 0 ? 0 a

H H 0
r n z H N
- O C H
1 3 0
N N N N N N N N N l m y 0 0 O
N N II 11

0 0 0 0
n W O
° O
H Y N Y Y F+ Y 1 n
0 0 0 0 0 I
H W
O m N O Y N N a N m N N I H
m O

3 n m
o W m o o N N o 0 0 0 0 0
i O m m

m m 0 0 0 o
y z
m
an c
b I 3 U
_
b
N Y m W W W Y a Y 1<< 10 Y Y I ? 'n

O m N a N m N m l g O p
10 N Y J N J 01 F+ 0 1 S r p I O N N a O m m I N
H H H r r H O N a o m m
N N

b N N N N O N O O lO N
. . . . . . . y C

0W 1.0 ....
N O OI O O
p W 2
x I
O I y
? ? • e ? r ? • ? • ? • ? • • • • • K
? m 3
Y Y H Y 1+ Y Y Y Y p
O1 0 m 01 Ol N Ql Cl O1 1<2E C..•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
p Y F+ Y H Y Y H
Y Y F+ I r
O Y J O K
S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
?
x O Y O O O Y N 0 O O 1D W O I .-. m
N
m H m O O
,
y M m O. H. o o m o H
O O J O O N J O O m J J O O m 0 O 1
m I1
m y
Z s H
0
0 m m 0
0
m 0 m ?aJ
w N N N N F+ W m W Y W ?+ Y W tl m •
J m m . °O •.
0
m
0 0 0 m o m
3
3 H J m J J m 0 01 0 m 0 m 0 I m
0..000. p
. 00 p
000.0 .... c
0 0 0 0 0 .
-
0 0 0 o i n Y m b b g q q q b b q b q b b9 b q q?
K
-n nnnnnnnnnnnnc?nnnn 1 ro
m E
m
°1 d
y H ,. m

H Y Y Y F+ 1+ Y L+ H?
v Z a a W m d o m? a ? ? o e a ? o a l
? H

m> _
W m JmN Y Y
i n
r lo ma r. elo o
Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F+ Y
0 ?'
b °°
° O
° O
O
p
p
b
'
p' W
w W
W w O
u w
O O O'0 O O O m
O W r0
yy .
]] m O O m 0 0 0 0 m O O O 0 m
3
? 3
W W W W W W W W y? O O m I
j

... a
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0? y >: a

Y N W W Y Y W W Y Y Y W d Y Y W I n n
X
N N N N N N N N N N N N A N N N I
. ?
? E
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I y
p 0
Y N F+ Y Y Y O
Y Ot O N 0 10 d Y A < ?
N 1D O 0 10 N J J 1p \ (]
n b K
N d W F+ I+ a A a p m y
T o 10 o Y F+ m N
m 0 }1
C
A N 1p J H O N Y OI m C N
mm o
Y
I O
? H
w to
KD I-a
x
n
r
H
z
b7 ?
w
O
q
x1
n
d
H
ro
b?71
N
H
O
z
O
1dI
L'J
C
l'J
H
O
z
N

ro
H
N
P4
m
a
M
N
O
N
0
r
r•
m
W
O
?y
•^1
lI
m
N•
ro
m
n
N
N•
O
O
P.
m
r
a
N
H
cHi
S
y
y
z
Q
0
z
m
O
q
3
H
ti
O
b
m
kJ
0
3
b

yy V V V Y Y Y Y
. U A W N Y O W U a W N

'
?
?
?
?? .
Am nn??nnnnnnnnn?n
••. ?

: m b N Y Y Y Y Y Y ?o in a w N Y q
m n r .. y b? a w N Y O
r H

o

' Y
m

I C [aj {?f
Z E E U1 Y Y N Y •L Z A
n
e
z
"
' ? ???? ? N N Y N Y N Y N
ro
y a m m
'
T?
/I
3? a w
N n O Y.n
YI w rn 3 7
? A z o H T o
m
rn
n m m m
W W . • ?

A o M 7 m m

n m rt ?
a I-- m 11 {m
d i

A
' E n N
M. Y. V. %
r Y I? F+ Y?
O J' U U O J U U U O J U

m
n
f] T m (j
w a 7 0 U
OU O O O U O O O O U O O 1
"' ry
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o

' A m
m'3
m pn

O
0
m A
A
i m m
`C O
3 tl ?

i .p
K Y N a K 2
U N J O U N J O O D U J O I H
m ?-B W o. . . o o
0000
m
' n
J 3 L rn . .
.
o o'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i m
G 3 r. T
3
O ^
? m n H

n
O N
A ? U U U U U U U U U U U U N I
m
n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o

n
s
b

Y

n d e.
I Y
b
m
' n
I Y
b
m
' n
Y
I a
I b
I m
n

b
m
n
Y
I m
I A
I m
I n
H
A
I O
q
0
MH
V
N
N
n
0
0
rr
a
V/
Y Y Y V Y Y
m
U N Y m J m W N 1 q J P U A W N Y O
m J
.G W N Y r
g
O) Am m W m m ZW Z y .
..
m m m m
W
W W W m z x
x WW
W M x
H r H C H A C H r 0 C H r b O H r b d H A C b O C b b
S H x H x H H S H I C? Z m S H ro m S H ro m x H H'0 m x x H'O ? C .11
A A A A
C C C C m
m [ roA roroA roroA '0b A 'O ? m? Y

A A A

b
H C H C A H C n W C n l

n b
?n
y b A w n p d ,b r
H H H Y I C H H O C H O I Y I m
H N C 'n' ? S? ro l m

M 1 m M
°
zl r z
H
z
x

. . . . . . . . , .. .. .

? m Y ?
r n H o I l o l l l I ?
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y I ?f K I m W W O W W O Y Y
Y Y Y Y I
N N N N N N N N N N Z n A ?
P P O m P O N N N m N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m G1 C N ...... ... .
I n y m ............
0 0 0 0 0
-x r
Y
Z
x
I - H A Y ?+ K
Y Y Y VI M m i O O I V
P
Y U
b
m
m
O
m
O
? m 3
U N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
N
O
N
N
I
O 0
m W
W
m
1p
1p
U
b
U
I n
m d
d
d
N
N
N N
N
N
A
d
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i

z
' [
? y
O V
UI Vl F+ W Y Y N
N N N N N N N N N m H O O O O Y m N Ul
1 O N m O D U Y Y N Y Y V V I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O 1p O O Y A N N A N m N N?
Y
3 n o a N O o vl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i H
m m
b
ro Y Y Y Y K
m Y 10 W W W W m N W
i N
b N Y m 1p W N U ro O A 11 "WW Y O Y U N 0..
N J O O O U O W x r O N N W N N I N O. O. 0U A
q
n O J N O O W W O O O m m O O N U 0?
x

q m
r b
Y Y Y Y V Y Y Y Y I .-. O H
P P P P P P P P P I < Fi C Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y V Y Y Y Y r
O O O O O O O O O ro ?1 O U O O O Y m O O U P Y O O m W o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ A q 0..00"W.. N N 0 0 0 J a o
Rf
.b H oo
o a o o m o o J Poo Y Y o i y n
H Y y
m z x

N N N N Y W W W Y W Y 1+ W O W
1111111J J I l0 m J. U J U J J U m P P P m P m m P m A
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3 3 I-I
O O O O O
...........
[] (]
. v
P P P P P P P P P I S m r H
00 ..... 00- ">M
g q q q q q q b b b b b b b q b b?
K
-n Gl G) G]CL)CG]4]L]G14]G]G] Gl G]4]G1 ? a
m
m
H M Y Y Y
K G] P Y Y O P V O W G
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V ? q$ U O m Y U m U m 10 d d P Y W d P W I
m S
L^ .... J N J m O N N m. $
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y O O Y Y O O Y Y O O O V Y O O Y ? y]
b f+o p Y W o o Y t+o 0 o Y Y O O Y I \ m
?1 ro
q A P O O P P O O P P O O O P P O O P? M
W W W W W W W W W y F{
m <

? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 H 2
V
Y Y W W V Y W W Y Y Y W A Y V W
N N N N N N N N N N N N N a N N N ? .-.
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O? y
Y W Y V Y Y Y Y Y
d N O W O O P d W G
O P m ?u b V U \
n
Y V
U U U b W W U p P IO
N W P N O V P O P - C
< m
Y O J A N m N Y Y I m C
I x m
C m I Y .
? H A
II II I m
0
I P N
Y Y
3 Y
0 o i H n
a I m..
y 3 ? A E
O
m 0 O
.yy, z
i r H
0
z
n c? ? bA<
II M b
11 Wb m
I r a
I m 7
I N d
?n o 3
-- 3 ?
m\ m
- W N
tl
H 3
3 o n
n . [x'
Y
O m AC
3 n C
3 n0
N K
3
x
11
0
O
3
?S
W
m
ro
3
W
I
0
O
n
m
m
m
'tH
C
Li
b
x
n
C
H'
z
O
C
rb
n
d
H
W
In
H
H
0
z
0
d
r
t1i
ry
0z
N
4
K
N
V
I-j
(D
N
K
m
a
n
N
0
N
Ul
r
r-
fD
m
/O/
1y.
•^1
N
VP-
N
b
N
,l
W
O
O
a
N
F-j
A
Y H? W Y Y Y
S CJ O 3 U' N Y O b m J m N A W N Y
M

? M

?
m
to .
Ib ?
? m ?? nnnnnnnnnn??

? nnn?? n
m ? • n ? ? m O? VI A W N H p b 0 J 01 VI A W N Y b

I
O w m
['
? ??? m W E(?/1m m Imil (mi, QlM(Z? m I
Z O
n Y Sa
7 tm m ! H N Y N 1+ N E b Y N Y N Y N Y N
?
Y N p
z° ? m ro n m n a m l y
n a
? !? a, - w w

y I N- y
H ,
x n
noY-n
p w rn
3 7
y ? 2 o G
w rt G
O
H
p ' W 'I

w O 7 r
n
a m n
z m a ^ . . . ? . .
• •
H
y O iC w
m m m ° 7
n

1 a w Y
A .p

?
m d Y Y m

n^ Q A Y M 1 I Y Y i I Y Y '
O N VI N O J VI VI O J VI V1 O J VI V? X
N
o (
]
?,
w7a o O O O O N O O O VI O O O VI O O I

,? ^ n
m m n 0 0 0 0 0
A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n
ro ; z m.wom
N ~ p
m
? O
b i m
H

' 3 w ^ p.
'
?' Y I I
I H
Y` z
'ro w x
S Y.
x I+. Ip Y Y I Y Y
VI VI y O b b J O VI , Y Y ? y
N n
1 3 3
? O O VI O O O N O O O N O O O N O ? n]
O J Y
?? ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? b
o

n

? m n O
m
^

y
m ? m
m N
m

ro
m N N N VI b N VI V' (n VI VI VI N VI VI VI I
'A1 I (j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 b

n
N n
O
p
m
Y
b
m
I N
I ,y
' m
n
W
A
m
n
a
m
I
I
I n
Y
u
b
m
I n
I Y
I m
I m
m
I n
m
? y
b
? p
C?
b
H
y
H
N
N
O
0
rr
a
V Y V V Y V Y Y Y V Y Y
P N N Y m P W N 'q J P N a W N Y O b m J P N d W N V
CJ I H C N i H

d m m m m m m m Z .Hi m m m m m m m w m m m m m z X II II I m
x x < ? c
H C H.r H m r H r? ? 0 C H r Y O H r 7 0 y z r Y C H r 7 1 y I
S H 2 H S H H S H I O? Z m
x y ?9
S H '0 m 2 H H'O 2 2 H'tl ?
m O? }1 ? 3
C C C C fm y
y
' q
hp?
I
q
C h1
C AHC ro W C n m H oo y
n
n t H
y u
i ty
D
m ,T m ,
U q A m W n ?] W A [' 3 n O
H H H H i C H H A C H n i H i m N 3? U
H i C ?? 5' I i N p
y ? i
H I m H
°? ° n
zz r z
H (]

?

II y
m
r n? H o i i o i i i i i N r
V Y V Y Y Y V Y Y i K i
? m W W O W W O Y Y N Y Y V V I

N N N N N N N N N
Ul
e n
m
P P O P P O N N d N m N N I

l N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l m O r l m " " " " " " " N o
: OHM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.....
x r n
H - 3
Z m \
X - m

? -Hb H Y K
Y H Y N H m o ? o i Y n
N Y A O m 10 O 10 O m 3 O V V V V V V N N
O
O O
1O W m N N N J N J? ow a
a a
N N N N N N d d O O i
p
,v
,v
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
H

r n
I b 3 0
y m m
.
L y
y ,
l
+IGH Y x t
d a II.
N N N N N N N N N I m y ?b O O m O V d I I I i N (p
n '.[
l N O N J Y Y N
O O
V V i Y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b
„ N m
m
O N O O P N N a N N i .-. OI O
Z
m m
O
3 n o to w o O P N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i y
m m
3
3
1
-1
?
Y
v
i ro V N N N Y a W I K
l Y P a N a w J a << ro I i o m o
P o P w I
+ N H
m W N Ip W Ip N N H . ro 0 a m
H? Y Y 1
Y o a m o o lu m
O P O d O N J m? $ r O N N N a i N O J O O m N

n O N W O O O P O O N O J O O N N O i
$

r H
Y V V Y Y Y M V V
0 H
P P P P P P P P 01 i <
C. Y m V V V m W V V N N N V Y d W r S
O O O O O O O O O i m O IO J O O O a O O W O P O O N W O 1 [?]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i $ }J •b O? m O O m d 0 0 P N O O m J O i ?] 'Ii II
y o P O O
Y 0 0 o w J m o O .o o l y n
y H . y
mo x Y
Z o
0
N N N N V W w W Y W Y Y W i ?J m O
01 01 P 01 P P P P P ? IO m J m m J ID J J \O m P P P m P m m P i m 'A '
P P P P P P P P P 3 3 H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i a K
r
j b m Y Y Y 9 7 9 b 7 7 b Y 7 b 7 Y 9 7?
-n G] G]Glp n nn nnOG) n Gl p G]pn ? ro
m
N m
HI
Y Y Y N V Y i

i K n
V J P Y H In V V V w In V H V?
N < ??
I-' ?' I-' I-' I-' I-' F' .' •0 Z W m P m VI J VI a W W W N J W w N a q
m P J J N P Y V N a P P 10 N d P N a I 2

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m
V O O V V O o p
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i
? \ m
3 '•J ro
ro
N O O N N O O N N O O O N N O O N i H 3
W w W W W W W W y H -
m
? m

? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i H 2
II
W Y Y w w H Y I+ a Y Y W
N N N N N N N N N N N N N d N N N I ,

m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o I H o

N A Y N V V N N W

O 10 0 P P N 10 N N < m
b N W W J d P m V \ n
n A
d A Y V V V N V m
N Ip V J N O w u J p m
N O O d m d N N V .-. r. m
< m
m J J m VI m O P A i m C
I xm
Z
n
r
b H
n b'
r cD
H
z :00
C7 W
a
[7 (D
d a
H
N
ro c
Pa w
m c
H
z r
O fD
b
En
r O
? M
C n
U] M
H 1•'•
z N
z
N H
N'
4 O
0
K m
H N
N
I n r
S I A m
H
•
n A n

y Y n

n

i N 3 y
H

m zz

H n
°
z
Y ? A
m I m
A
a A
n
o o
vl
ro
3 ? m

H m

A
n
e
E1 J
0
m A
n m
A n
m m
m
m
A
m m
A n

A A
n n
Y
T Y
O
A

n
A
m
II N
A
m
I n
I Y
A
m
I n
I H
A
m
n
I A
m
n
I H
I m
Y Y F+ Y Y H Y
d W N Y O O
d
N Y
J O
m
.
.
.
.
3 I tf A A A?1 A A A A A A;tI A A A A A ? A
Y I m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m? m
X Ir nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?n
X I m
U] 'FI H Y Y W V Y Y b m J q lP d W N Y I Kj
m 01 N d N Y O i-]
r ? m fmrnmmzz
n
m n a n .. ? ?z
'S m m E m m m m m m m
I Z I Ul
N

p a .T a
I'j
I Y
V N Y N V N Y
N V N Y N L+ N
a ?a n w
n r m
L1 n A 3 w
m a a w
n x n
n p N-n
a M 3 S

o n
M rt p
M
7 m
n

o a n ?
Y- W (p
m I-a a
w rt a
H m M ?0
a a F- I I I X
P.E rt A ?+Y H H YY H H
Y-
o O J VI VI O J VI N O J N IT O J VI
n
n e
n o m o 0 o m o 0 o m o 0 o 0
m o o
a r a O .
. .
rt n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
0 0 n
a w 0 m
g

a n v n
m ? o Y
a a ? K
.
. z
3 w n 6
a x a' M ?
Y Y I? ?
. I C Y '+ Y ?+ I
N VI J O lP N J O V1 V? J O V? VI J O i
ib-]
x Hm a oovio oo?n o 0o vl o0o vlo I m

3 L M
[
3 Y n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I

3
n o ^
.y
a H
rt
N

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• r r ? ? • r ? ? e r ? t • •
? A
m
m
y
A
o
b
0
zz
HM
v
r
?po
W
n
O
0
cr
APPENDIX D
FRESH WATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
13 June 2008
Memorandum to
From:
Subject:
Undrea J. Major, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development - Western Region
Lance P. Fontaine, Ph.D., Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Unit, Biological Surveys Group
JUN 2 0 1008
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Freshwater mussel survey report for proposed extension of a
culvert outlet on Ut to Four Mile Creek, Mecklenburg County
under I-485; TIP # R-0211EC. .
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend a culvert on
Ut to Four Mile Creek in Mecklenburg County under I-485 (TIP R-0211 EC). Ut to Four
Mile Creek is located in the Catawba River basin (subbasin 030834). From the project
site, this creek flows approximately I mile until the confluence with Four Mile Creek, a
tributary to the Catawba River.
The federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (CHS), Lasmigona decorata is listed by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potentially occurring in Mecklenburg
County. Historically, the species was collected from Mecklenburg County in the
Catawba River-proper, as well as several other streams and ponds in the Catawba River
system around the Charlotte-area. Additionally, it was found in several systems in the
Pee Dee River basin in Cabarrus and Union Counties. More recent collection records,
however, indicate that the distribution of CHS in North Carolina is highly fragmented and
has drastically declined with only six populations of the species presently known to exist.
One small remnant population is known to occur in Union County in Waxhaw Creek
which is a tributary to the Catawba River. Another small population in Union County
occurs in Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River in the Pee Dee River system.
Although it was once found in large rivers and streams, the Carolina heelsplitter is now
restricted to cool, clean, shallow, heavily shaded streams of moderate gradient. Stable
streambanks and channels, with pool, riffle and run sequences, little or no fine sediment,
and periodic natural flooding, appear to be required for the Carolina heelsplitter.
Although the heelsplitter is found in some degraded streams, such as Waxhaw Creek, it
appears to be restricted to the highest quality portions of those streams.
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of the 13 February 2008 NC
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was performed to detennine if records of rare
mussels were within the proposed project study area or receiving waters. This review
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENJIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMNGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.00H.00T.STATE.NC.U5 RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
did not indicate the known presence of the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter
within the project study area or in Ut to Four Mile Creek.
On 15 April 2008 NCDOT biologists Jason Mays (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-133)
and Lance P. Fontaine visually inspected the project site. Ut to Four Mile Creek at the
project crossing is a shallow (approximately 3 inches deep), low-flowing stream,
approximately I meter wide in a heavily urbanized (suburban-type) development. At the
project site, this system is not considered habitat for CHS.
As a result of this survey as well as the habitat requirements, and the historical
range and distribution of CHS , Ut to Four Mile Creek is not considered adequate habitat
for this mussel species. In summary, the biological conclusion for Carolina
heelsplitter for R-0211EC on Ut to Four Mile Creek is "No Effect".
cc: Michael Turchy, Western Environmental Specialist, NEPMG

0
0
m
r
r
D